text:
# A Model with Propagating Spinons beyond One Dimension.

## I Introduction

In NTsv  Alexander Nersesyan and one of the authors presented a proof of existence of fractional quantum number excitations in a model describing a certain frustrated magnet in the number of dimensions greater than one. This magnet consists of spin-1/2 antiferromagnetic Heisenberg chains weakly coupled by a frustrated antiferromagnetic interaction:

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{j,n}{}}\left\{J_{}𝐒_{j,n}𝐒_{j+1,n}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =\pm 1}{}}\left[J_r(n,n+\mu )𝐒_{j,n}+J_d(n,n+\mu )\left(𝐒_{j+1,n}+𝐒_{j1,n}\right)\right]𝐒_{j,n+\mu }\right\},`$ (1)
where $`𝐒_{j,n}`$ are spin-1/2 operators, and $`J_{}>>J_r,J_d>0`$. The interaction pattern of this model resembles the flag of American Confederation which gave the model its name. Fractional quantum number excitations appear when $`J_r(n,n+\mu )=2J_d(n,n+\mu )`$. If this condition is fulfilled, the interaction between staggered components of the magnetization on chains $`n`$ and $`n+\mu `$ vanishes. The weakness of the interchain coupling allows us to employ the continuous description. In the continuum limit each Heisenberg chain is represented by the SU1(2) Wess-Zumino-Novikov-Witten (WZNW) model and the relevant part of the interchain interaction is reduced to the interaction of spin currents with different chirality:

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[H_n+\gamma (n,n+\mu ){\displaystyle \text{d}x(𝐉_n\overline{𝐉}_{n+\mu }+𝐉_{n+\mu }\overline{𝐉}_n)}\right]`$ (2)
Here $`H_n`$ is the SU1(2) WZNW Hamiltonian

$`H_n={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi v}{3}}{\displaystyle }\text{d}x(:𝐉_n^2:+:\overline{𝐉}_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}:)`$ (3)
where $`v=\pi J_{}a_0/2`$ is the spin velocity, $`J_n^a(x),\overline{J}_n^a(x)`$ are operators representing holomorphic and antiholomorphic currents belonging to the SU(2)1 Kac-Moody algebra. The currents with different $`n`$ commute. The coupling constant $`\gamma (n,n+\mu )J_r(n,n+\mu )`$. Continuum limit Hamiltonian (2) coincides with the one introduced by Emery, Kivelson and ZacharEmKiv  in the context of theory of stripes. We emphasise that the interchain interaction in this frustrated model remains relevant and generates spectral gaps. Therefore this model does not belong to the class of sliding Luttinger liquid models where soliton excitations remain confined to the chains.

Though the authors of NTsv  have managed to proof the existence of spin $`S=1/2`$ excitations in model (2), it remained unclear whether these excitations are able to propagate in the direction transverse to the chains or remain confined. In the Confederate Flag model the staggered magnetization operator creates two non-interacting spinons (the absence of interaction follows from the fact that these spinons belong to different sectors of the Hamiltonian $`H^+,H^{}`$, -see below). Therefore one way to resolve the problem of propagation is to calculate correlation functions of the staggered magnetizations between different chains. If these correlation functions do not vanish, the excitations propagate. The difficulty is that such correlation functions are essentially non-perturbative objects (they remain zero in any order of perturbation theory) and to calculate them one has to somehow go beyond perturbation theory. The corresponding methods are available for a finite number of chains (namely $`N=2,3,4`$ where exact solutions are available). Though the most interesting case corresponds to an infinite number of chains $`N\mathrm{}`$, information obtained for finite $`N`$ may also provide valuable insights. The calculations of the interchain correlation function of staggered magnetizations done in NTsv  for the case of two chains gave a nonvanishing answer, but one may argue that $`N=2`$ is too small a number to allow even a qualitative extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit. Similar calculations done for $`N=4`$ could not distinguish between intra and interchain correlation functions. In this paper we perform accurate calculations for the case of four chains $`N=4`$. We find that the interchain correlation functions do not vanish.

In the continuum limit the staggered magnetization $`𝐍=(1)^j𝐒_j`$ and the dimerization $`ϵ=(1)^j(𝐒_j𝐒_{j+1})`$ operators become smooth fields. For the chain number $`n`$ they are expressed through matrix elements of the $`S=1/2`$ primary field of the $`n`$-th WZNW model:

$`\widehat{g}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(n;x)=\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}ϵ(n;x)+\text{i}(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}𝐍(n;x)`$ (4)
The action for model (2) is local in $`g`$ and posseses the global SUR(2)$`\times `$SUL(2) symmetry. Namely, the action remains invariant under the following transformations:

$`g_{2n}g_{2n}V,g_{2m+1}V^+g_{2m+1},`$
$`g_{2n}Ug_{2n},g_{2m+1}g_{2m+1}U^+,`$ (5)
where $`V,U`$ are coordinate-independent SU(2) matrices. This symmetry dictates the following form of the two-point correlation functions:

$`g_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(\tau ,x;2n)g_{\sigma _3\sigma _4}^+(0,0;2m)=\delta _{s_1\sigma _4}\delta _{s_2\sigma _3}𝒟_{2n,2m}(\tau ,x)`$
$`g_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}(\tau ,x;2n)g_{\sigma _3\sigma _4}(0,0;2m+1)=\delta _{s_1\sigma _4}\delta _{s_2\sigma _3}𝒟_{2n,2m+1}(\tau ,x)`$ (6)
where $`𝒟`$ do not contain spin indices. Substituting Eq.(4) in the above equations we obtain the following important relation between correlation functions of staggered energy density and staggered magnetization:

$`ϵ_{2n}(\tau ,x)ϵ_{2m}(0,0)=N_{2n}^a(\tau ,x)N_{2m}^a(0,0)`$
$`ϵ_{2n+1}(\tau ,x)ϵ_{2m+1}(0,0)=N_{2n+1}^a(\tau ,x)N_{2m+1}^a(0,0)`$
$`ϵ_{2n}(\tau ,x)ϵ_{2m+1}(0,0)=N_{2n}^a(\tau ,x)N_{2m+1}^a(0,0)`$
Now let us recall the important feature of Hamiltonian (2): as was noticed in NTsv , it separates into a sum of two commuting parts: $`H=H^++H^{}`$ (such structure of the Hamiltonian was first observed in the context of Kondo lattice in orignac ) . Therefore eigenstates are separated into two sectors with different parity. The Hamiltonian density in the plus parity sector is

$`^+={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi v}{3}}(:𝐉_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}:+:𝐉_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}:+:\overline{𝐉}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}:+:\overline{𝐉}_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}:)+(\lambda 𝐉_1+\lambda ^{}𝐉_3)(\lambda \overline{𝐉}_2+\lambda ^{}\overline{𝐉}_4)`$ (8)
For the purposes of this paper we find it convenient to consider different copling constants $`\lambda \lambda ^{}`$ such that the difference between these coupling constants is small ($`|\lambda \lambda ^{}|<<\lambda `$). Physically this means that we still consider the frustrated interchain interactions, but allow their amplitudes to vary between different chains.

By using the Abelian bosonization procedure for the SU1(2) currents one can write the Hamiltonians $`H^\pm `$ in terms of bosonic fields $`\phi ,\overline{\phi }`$ living on each chain (see NTsv  for the details). In this representation fields $`\phi _{1,3}`$ ($`\overline{\phi }_{1,3}`$) interact with the fields $`\overline{\phi }_{2,4}`$ ($`\phi _{2,4}`$) such that

$`H=H^+[\phi _{1,3};\overline{\phi }_{2,4}]+H^{}[\overline{\phi }_{1,3};\phi _{2,4}]`$ (9)
The convenience of this representation is related to the fact that it allows to represent $`\widehat{g}(j)`$ in a factorized form:

$`\widehat{g}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}C_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}:\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }(\sigma \phi +\sigma ^{}\overline{\phi })]:C_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}z_\sigma \overline{z}_\sigma ^{},`$
$`C_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\pi (1\sigma \sigma ^{})/4},`$ (10)
where

$`z_\sigma =\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }\phi ],\overline{z}_\sigma =\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }\overline{\phi }],(\sigma =\pm 1).`$ (11)
Eqs.(9,10) select a set of potentially non-vanishing interchain correlators:

$`G_{13}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\phi (1)}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\phi (3)},\overline{G}_{13}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{\phi }(1)}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{\phi }(3)}`$
$`D_{12}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\phi (1)}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{\phi }(2)},\overline{D}_{12}=\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{\phi }(1)}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\phi (2)}`$ (12)
From these correlators one can obtain correlation functions of both vector $`𝐍`$ and scalar $`ϵ`$ staggered fields:

$`ϵ_{2n}(\tau ,x)ϵ_{2m}(0,0)=N_{2n}^a(\tau ,x)N_{2m}^a(0,0)=|G_{2n,2m}(\tau ,x)|^2`$
$`ϵ_{2n}(\tau ,x)ϵ_{2m+1}(0,0)=N_{2n}^a(\tau ,x)N_{2m+1}^a(0,0)=|D_{2n,2m+1}(\tau ,x)|^2`$ (13)
According to these formulas spins on neighboring chains are oriented antiferromagnetically. We emphasise that this conclusion follows just from the symmetry arguments and the chiral decoupling of the operators (10) and the Hamiltonian (9).

## II Exact solution of model (8)

The exact solution of model (8) was obtained in AndJ . The spectrum includes heavy solitons and antisolitons with mass $`M`$ and a light singlet Majorana fermion with mass $`m`$. The mass ratio is $`m/M(\lambda \lambda ^{})`$ and vanishes in the limit of equal couplings. This is the limit which was studied in NTsv , it corresponds to the uniform interchain interactions and periodic boundary conditions in the transverse direction. The presence of such periodicity constitutes an additional symmetry whose presence leads to vanishing of certain correlation functions. Therefore we prefer to keep $`m/M`$ finite. The two-particle scattering matrix of model (8) is given by

$`S(\theta )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S[su(2);\theta ]_{\sigma _1,\sigma _2}^{\overline{\sigma }_1,\overline{\sigma }_2}\hfill & \hfill \delta _{\sigma ,\overline{\sigma }}\frac{\text{e}^{\theta /2}\text{i}}{\text{e}^{\theta /2}+\text{i}}\\ \delta _{\sigma ,\overline{\sigma }}\frac{\text{e}^{\theta /2}\text{i}}{\text{e}^{\theta /2}+\text{i}}\hfill & \hfill 1\end{array}\right)`$ (16)
where $`S[su(2)]`$ is a 2$`\times `$2 scattering matrix of the SU(2) Thirring model.

The Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz (TBA) are

$`F/L={\displaystyle \frac{Tm}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \text{d}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{ln}[1+\text{e}^{ϵ_1(\theta )/T}]}{\displaystyle \frac{TM}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \text{d}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{ln}[1+\text{e}^{ϵ_2(\theta )/T}]}`$ (17)
$`ϵ_n(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`Ts\mathrm{ln}[1+\text{e}^{ϵ_{n1}(\theta )/T}][1+\text{e}^{ϵ_{n+1}(\theta )/T}]`$ (18)
$``$ $`\delta _{n,1}m\mathrm{cosh}\theta \delta _{n,2}M\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$
These equations are valid for $`\lambda ^{}\lambda `$.

It is worth mentioning that model (8) is generated in the relativistic limit as the spin sector of the following fermionic model:

$`H={\displaystyle \text{d}x\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}C_{j\sigma }^+(_x^2k_F^2)C_{j\sigma }+t(C_{1\sigma }^+C_{2\sigma }+C_{2\sigma }^+C_{1\sigma })gC_{j\sigma }^+C_{k\sigma }C_{k\sigma ^{}}^+C_{j\sigma ^{}}\right]},`$
$`\sigma =\pm 1/2,j=1,2;g>0`$ (19)
From the solution of this model obtained in tsvelik  it can be extracted that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{M}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_{}}{ϵ_F}}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}^2(ϵ_F/M)`$
$`M={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}k_Fg\mathrm{exp}(\pi k_F/g)`$ (20)
which provides a direct relationship with model (8).

## III The correlation functions

We shall calculate the correlation functions using the formfactor approach. In this approach one calculates matrix elements (formfactors) of various operators using their transformation properties under various symmetries of the problem. General information about the method can be obtained from various review articles fedya ,grach .

Let us consider operators $`\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }\phi _1]`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }\phi _3]`$. We will be interested only in the limit $`m<<M`$, therefore it is sufficient to consider the states with one soliton (antisoliton) and arbitrary number of light particles. In this case it is reasonable to suggest the following formfactor expansions:

$`\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }\phi _1]|0>=Q_{even}+Q_{odd}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }\phi _3]|0>=Q_{even}Q_{odd}`$ (21)
where $`Q_{even}`$ ($`Q_{odd}`$) has matrix elements with the states with of one heavy soliton and even (odd) number of light Majorana fermions. Notice that the on-chain correlation functions for both operators are the same as it must be. The problem is simplified by the fact that the Majorana fermions have a non-trivial scattering matrix only with the heavy particle. Otherwise the dependence of the matrix element on the Majorana fermion rapidities is like for the Ising model. Using the results of Smirnov , where a systems with a similar S-matrix was studied, we obtain for the following expressions:

$`<s(\beta );\chi _1(\beta _1),\mathrm{}\chi _{2n}(\beta _2n)|Q_{even}=(C^+)^{1/2}\text{e}^{\beta /4}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}}\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j){\displaystyle \underset{i.j}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta _{ij}/2\right)`$ (22)
$`<s(\beta );\chi _1(\beta _1),\mathrm{}\chi _{2n+1}(\beta _{2n+1})|Q_{odd}=C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}\text{e}^{\beta /4}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}}\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j){\displaystyle \underset{i.j}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta _{ij}/2\right)`$ (23)
where $`\beta `$ is the soliton’s rapidity and $`\beta _i`$ stand for the rapidities of the light particles. $`C^\pm `$ are normalization factors to be determined later. The function $`\psi ^{()}(\beta )`$ satisfies the following equation

$`\psi ^{()}(\beta )\psi ^{()}(\beta \text{i}\pi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\text{i}\text{e}^\beta }}`$ (24)
and is given by

$`\psi ^{()}(\beta )=\text{e}^{\beta /4}\psi ^{(0)}(\beta ),`$ (25)
$`\psi ^{(0)}(\beta )=2^{3/4}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\omega }{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2[(\beta +\text{i}\pi )\omega /2]+\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pi \omega /2)}{2\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \omega )\mathrm{cosh}(\pi \omega /2)}}\right\}`$
As follows from (24), this function has the following asymptotics:

$`\psi ^{()}(\beta +\mathrm{})\text{i}\text{e}^{\beta /2}`$
$`\psi ^{()}(\beta \mathrm{})1`$ (26)
The operators $`\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{\phi }(2,4)]`$ are expressed in a similar way, but with all rapidities having the opposite sign. Therefore their expansions include the function $`\psi ^{(+)}(\beta )=\psi ^{()}(\beta )`$ which decays at $`\mathrm{}`$ and approaches 1 at $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$.

Let us briefly comment on expressions (22,23). The operators under consideration have Lorentz spin 1/4. This dictates that under the Lorentz transformation $`\beta \beta +\theta ,\beta _j\beta _j+\theta `$ the matrix element of that operator must acquire a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(\theta /4)`$. As we see from (22,23), this property is fulfilled. Another property is that the formfactor is multiplied on the S-matrix $`S(\beta ,\beta ^{})`$ whenever two particles with rapidities $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ are interchanged. Since $`\mathrm{tanh}(\beta _{ij}/2)`$ is an odd function, this is obviously fulfilled for the Majorana fermions. The function $`\psi `$ plays the same role for the ineterchange of a Majorana fermion and the heavy particle. The choice of asymptotics of functions $`\psi ^{(\pm )}`$ is determined by the fact that in on small distances bosonic exponents (21) become (anti)holomorphic fields.

Substituting (22,23) into Eqs.(21) and performing certain algebraic manipulations (see Appendix 1), we arrive at the following expressions for the correlation functions on the same and on different chains ($`r^2=\tau ^2+x^2`$, we put $`v=1`$):

$`G_{pq}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\phi (p)}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\phi (q)}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau \text{i}x}{\tau +\text{i}x}}\right)^{1/4}C(M^4m)^{1/8}_{pq}(r)`$
$`D_{pq}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\phi (p)}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{\phi }(q)}=C(M^4m)^{1/8}_{pq}(r)`$ (27)
where $`C`$ is a numerical coefficient, $`p,q=1,3`$ for $`G`$ and $`p=1,3;q=2,4`$ for $`D`$.

$`_{11}(r)=_{33}(r)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \text{e}^{\beta /2}\text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=1}{}\frac{1}{n}\text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i>j}{}[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _{ij}/2)]^1\right\}}`$ (28)
$`_{13}(r)=_{24}(r)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \text{e}^{\beta /2}\text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=1}{}\frac{(1)^n}{n}\text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i>j}{}[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _{ij}/2)]^1\right\}}`$ (29)
For the correlation functions on neighboring chains (see Eqs.(13) ($`p=1,3;q=2,4`$) we have

$`D_{12}(r)={\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=1}{}\frac{1}{n}\text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{(0)}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i>j}{}[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _{ij}/2)]^1\right\}}`$
$`D_{14}(r)={\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=1}{}\frac{(1)^n}{n}\text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{(0)}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i>j}{}[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _{ij}/2)]^1\right\}}`$ (30)
The normalization factor $`(M^3m)^{1/8}`$ in Eqs.(27) is dictated by the facts that (i) the single chain correlation functions do not vanish in the limit $`m0`$, (ii) the scaling dimension of the operator is 1/4. In the limit $`Mr>>1,mr<<1`$ the integral in $`\beta `$ converges at $`|\beta |(Mr)^{1/2}`$. Since $`|\psi ^{(0)}(\beta _j)|^2\mathrm{exp}(|\beta _j|/2)`$, the integrals in $`\beta _j`$ converge even at $`mr=0`$. As result we get

$`D_{12}(r)=C(M^3m)^{1/8}K_0(Mr),D_{14}(r)=C(M^3m)^{1/8}K_0(Mr)`$ (31)
where is $`C`$ the numerical constant which remains undertermined. To calculate the other asymptotics is a more complicated task. The calculations are done in Appendix 2; the result is

$`_{11}(r)=C_{11}M^{1/4}\text{e}^{Mr}r^{5/8}`$
$`_{13}(r)=C_{13}m^{1/2}M^{3/4}r^{1/8}\text{e}^{Mr}`$ (32)
where $`C`$ are again undertermined numerical constants. From here we derive the following estimates for the singularities in the imaginary part of the staggered magnetic susceptibility (dimerization) at $`s=2M,(s^2=\omega ^2q^2)`$:

$`\mathrm{}m\chi _{11}(s)(s2M)^{1/4},\mathrm{}m\chi _{12}m^{1/4}(s2M)^{1/2},\mathrm{}m\chi _{13}(s)mM^{5/4}\theta (s2M)`$ (33)
These expressions are valid at $`s2M>>m`$ so that $`\mathrm{}m\chi _{12}`$ cannot really become greater than $`\mathrm{}m\chi _{11}`$.

## IV Conclusions

Looking at expressions for the interchain correlation functions, we see that thay are proportional to powers of the particle masses. These masses are generated dynamically in the theory, they are exponentially small in the inverse coupling constant and therefore the interchain tunneling of the solitons is an essentially non-perturbative process. This conclusion coincides with the result for two chains NTsv . The four chain case, however, introduces a new feature: the presence of the singlet particle. It is interesting that the prefactor in the interchain correlation functions contains both masses and vanishes when the mass of the singlet particle goes to zero (this occurs for periodic boundary conditions in the transverse direction; the case considered in NTsv ). This indicates that the singlet sector plays an important role in the interchain propagation of solitons probably providing conditions for an uninhibited tunneling. We remind the reader that the fraction of the Hilbert space occupied by singlet excitations grows with the number of chains NTsv  and these excitations will certainly play an important role in the thermodynamic limit determining interchain soliton propagation.

In conclusion we would like to emphasise a curious symmetry between correlations functions of the staggered energy density and magnetization (13) existing in Confederate Flag magnet. This symmetry unites $`ϵ`$ and $`𝐍`$ into a four-component vector giving rise to an analogy between this model and models of non-collinear magnets. As it was pointed out in chubukov , spinons naturally exist in disordered non-collinear magnets and it looks likely that Confederate Flag model provides a microscopic realization of that scenario.

## V Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Alexander Its for valueable discussions and references. AMT acknowledges the support from US DOE under contract number DE-AC02 -98 CH 10886. FS acknowledges the support from the Institute for Strongly Correlated and Complex Systems at BNL and from INTAS grant number 00-00055.

APPENDIX 1

$`G_{11}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \text{e}^{\beta /2}\text{e}^{M\tau \mathrm{cosh}\beta \text{i}Mx\mathrm{sinh}\beta }\underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}\text{d}\beta _j\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{m\tau \mathrm{cosh}\beta _j\text{i}xm\mathrm{sinh}\beta _j}\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\beta _{ij}/2)}`$
$`G_{13}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \text{e}^{\beta /2}\text{e}^{M\tau \mathrm{cosh}\beta \text{i}Mx\mathrm{sinh}\beta }\underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}\text{d}\beta _j\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{m\tau \mathrm{cosh}\beta _j\text{i}xm\mathrm{sinh}\beta _j}\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\beta _{ij}/2)}`$
By the shift of the integration contours one obtains the following expressions:

$`G_{pq}(\tau ,x)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau \text{i}x}{\tau +\text{i}x}}\right)^{1/4}_{pq}(r),r^2=\tau ^2+x^2`$ (35)
$`_{11}(r)=_{33}(r)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}\text{d}\beta _j\text{e}^{\beta /2}\text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\beta _{ij}/2)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \text{e}^{\beta /2}\text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=1}{}\frac{1}{n}\text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i>j}{}[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _{ij}/2)]^1\right\}}`$ (36)
$`_{13}(r)=_{31}(r)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}\text{d}\beta _j\text{e}^{\beta /2}\text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\beta _{ij}/2)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \text{e}^{\beta /2}\text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=1}{}\frac{(1)^n}{n}\text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}|\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)|^2\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i>j}{}[\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _{ij}/2)]^1\right\}}`$ (37)
Here we have used the fact that the correlation functions are equal to the determinants of the Fredholm operators (see Appendix 2) and used Eq.(39). The correlation functions on neighboring chains are given by similar integrals:

$`D_{pq}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\phi (1)}\text{e}^{\text{i}\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{\phi }(2)}=_{pq}(r)`$ (38)
$`_{12}(r)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}\text{d}\beta _j\text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)\psi ^{(+)}(\beta \beta _j)\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\beta _{ij}/2)}`$
$`_{14}(r)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \text{d}\beta \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}\text{d}\beta _j\text{e}^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta }\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\psi ^{()}(\beta \beta _j)\psi ^{(+)}(\beta \beta _j)\text{e}^{mr\mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\beta _{ij}/2)}`$
Taking into account that $`\psi ^+(\beta )\psi ^{()}(\beta )=|\psi ^{(0)}(\beta )|^2`$ and using Eq.(39) we arrive at Eqs.(30).

APPENDIX 2

In this Appendix we calculate the asymptotics of correlation functions $`_{pq}(r)`$. First, let us consider as an example the scaling of the Ising model. It is well-known that the correlation functions of the order and disorder parameter operators for this model can be expressed as follows:

$`\mu (x)\mu (0)=G_+(mr)+G_{}(mr),`$
$`\sigma (x)\sigma (0)=G_+(mr)G_{}(mr),`$
$`G_\pm (\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\pm )^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _n\text{e}^{\rho {\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta _i\beta _j)`$
The functions $`G_\pm `$ are determinants of the Fredholm operators:

$$G_\pm (\rho )=\text{det}\left(I\pm K\right)$$

where $`K`$ is the integral operator with the kernel:

$$K(\beta _1,\beta _2)=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (\mathrm{cosh}\beta _1+\mathrm{cosh}\beta _2)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{1}{2}(\beta _1\beta _2)}$$

From here one can conclude that $`G_\pm `$ satisfy the Painlevé equation Jimbo  and perform a rather detailed analysis of these functions. The analysis of asymptotic behavior is a simplier task however and can be performed as follows. Using the formula

$$\mathrm{log}(\text{det}A)=\text{Tr}(\mathrm{log}A)$$
(39)
one obtains:

$`\mathrm{log}\left(G_\pm (\rho )\right)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\pm )^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _n\text{e}^{\rho {\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{1}{2}(\beta _i\beta _{i+1})}}`$
where $`\beta _{n+1}\beta _1`$. Consider one of integrals:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _n\text{e}^{\rho {\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{1}{2}(\beta _i\beta _{i+1})}}`$ (40)
We are interested in the asymptotics for $`\rho 0`$ where the integral diverges. Let us introduce new variables:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\beta _i\beta _{i+1},i=1,\mathrm{},n1,`$
$`\omega ={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _j)`$ (41)
Then the integral becomes

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}2{\displaystyle \underset{D(\mathrm{\Delta })}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\text{e}^{\rho \omega }}{\sqrt{\omega ^2D(\mathrm{\Delta })^2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{2}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{\Delta }_j}}{2}\right)}}`$
where

$$D(\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1})=\left(\text{e}^{\beta _j}\right)\left(\text{e}^{\beta _j}\right)$$

It is clear that the integrals over $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ are always rapidly converging while the integral over $`\omega `$ diverges at $`\rho 0`$. The estimation of leading contribution is straightforward. We give the final result for $`G_+`$ which diverges at $`\rho 0`$:

$`\mathrm{log}\left(G_+(\rho )\right)\left[2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{2}\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{\Delta }_j}}{2}\right)}}\right]\text{log}(\rho )`$ (42)
The expression in square brackets is the anomalous dimension. It equals $`\frac{1}{4}`$. This value is known from many sources, but actually even direct summation of series is possible. In a similar way we obtain

$`\mathrm{log}\left(G_{}(\rho )\right)\rho ^{3/4}`$ (43)
Now let us turn to the case considered in the present paper.

$`_\pm (\rho )=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\pm )^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _n\text{e}^{\rho {\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta _i\beta _j){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left|\psi ^{()}(\beta _j)\right|^2`$
The functions $`_\pm `$ are determinants of the integral operators

$$_\pm (\rho )=\text{det}\left(I\pm L\right)$$

where $`L`$ is the integral operator with the kernel:

$$L(\beta _1,\beta _2)=\text{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\rho (\mathrm{cosh}\beta _1+\mathrm{cosh}\beta _2)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{1}{2}(\beta _1\beta _2)}\left|\psi ^{()}(\beta _1)\psi ^{()}(\beta _2)\right|$$

So, similarly to the Ising case the logarithms of these determinants can be written as

$`\mathrm{log}\left(_\pm (\rho )\right)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\pm )^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{d}\beta _n\text{e}^{\rho {\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{1}{2}(\beta _i\beta _{i+1})}}\left|\psi ^{()}(\beta _j)\right|^2`$
Consider the integral

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\text{d}\beta _1\mathrm{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\text{d}\beta _n\text{e}^{\rho {\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{cosh}\beta _j}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{1}{2}(\beta _i\beta _{i+1})}\left|\psi ^{()}(\beta _j)\right|^2$$

and make change of variables (41). The difference with the Ising case is due to the fact that we need to express $`\beta _j`$ in terms of the new variables and to substitute them into $`\psi `$. We have:

$`\beta _j=\mathrm{log}\left(\omega \sqrt{\omega ^2D^2(\mathrm{\Delta })}\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\text{e}^{\beta _j}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\text{e}^{\beta _k}\right)`$ (44)
where the last term depends only on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s. The integral over $`\omega `$ is taken between the limits $`D(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ over two branches: one the first one one takes $`+`$ sign in (44), and on the second one the minus sign. The part divergent at $`\rho 0`$ comes from the region where $`\mathrm{log}(\omega )`$ is large. It is not the second branch of the integral over $`\omega `$, since $`|\psi ^{()}(\beta )|`$ is rapidly decreasing as $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$. So, only the first branch contributes, and, since $`|\psi ^{()}(\beta )|`$ rapidly approaches $`1`$ as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, we can replace all $`|\psi ^{()}(\beta _j)|`$ by $`1`$. The result of this considerations is that the asymptotics of the integral is $`\frac{1}{2}`$ of what we had in the Ising case. So,

$`\mathrm{log}\left(_+(\rho )\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{log}(\rho ),\mathrm{log}\left(_{}(\rho )\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{log}(\rho )`$ (45)


format: text

text:
# FISSION-RESIDUES PRODUCED IN THE SPALLATION REACTION 238U + p at 1 A GeV.

## 1 Introduction

Fission of heavy nuclei excited at high collision energies has been investigated for the last decades. Produced by fragmentation or proton collision, the excited nuclei release their energy by emitting neutrons and charged particles, and eventually by fission. At low excitation energy, close to the fission barrier the probability of fission for nuclei around U stays constant or decreases at increasing excitation energy (first chance fission). Increasing further the excitation energy, two opposite tendancies are observed. High excitation energy and emission of charged particles reduce the probability of fission. On the other hand, neutron emission produces more and more fissile nuclei, enhancing fission. For the highest excitation energies, lighter elements which are less fissile, are created and finally fission vanishes. The competition between the various decay channels provides keys to understand the structure of hot nuclei, level densities, dissipation and disappearance of shell effects with excitation energy.

One of the first experimental approaches to the question of competition of the different decay-channels was opened with radiochemical and off-line mass separator techniques. G. Friedlander et al.  studied isotopic production of the alkaline elements rubidium and cesium in p + U and p + W reactions at various energies. This pioneering work already characterises the evolution of the symmetric breaking of the excited fragmentation residues as a function of the incident energy. A decade later, similar measurements on alkalines were undertaken using on-line mass separators  which we will use as a basis for comparison in the following. Meanwhile many results evaluated in reference  were obtained to complete these first studies.

The energy dependence of the reactions already studied in reference  must be known and controlled for all applications. Until now this aspect has been explored by radiochemistry and $`\gamma `$-spectroscopy. The systems p + Pb  and p + Bi  were extensively investigated by using off-line $`\gamma `$-spectrometry in a wide range of energies.

Why do we start new studies on this question ? The new experimental equipment operating at GSI offers an efficient way to separate isotopes in inverse kinematics at relativistic energies. A 1 A GeV U-beam is delivered at the heavy-ion synchrotron (SIS), and in-flight separation techniques become applicable to all the energetic U residues. The inverse kinematics at relativistic energies provides fully ionised forward-focussed fragments which are separated by using the FRagment Separator (FRS) and identified by energy loss ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E) and time-of-flight (ToF) measurements. Each of the isotopic cross-sections can be determined, and the kinematics of every residue can also be reconstructed. Based only on physical properties of the ions, the method does not depend on chemistry. As beta-decay half-lives are much longer than the 0.3 $`\mu `$s separation time, primary residues are observed.

One of the important findings of the combination of the relativistic U beam at SIS with the FRS separation techniques was the identification and yield measurement of 117 new neutron-rich nuclei down to the sub-nanobarn level, among which the doubly-magic nucleus 78Ni . The efficiency, selectivity and high sensitivity of the method was clearly demonstrated. It triggered new efforts to produce beams of exotic nuclei by in-flight techniques.

Apart from the scientific interest of proton induced spallation reactions, applications were soon looked upon. For the purpose of Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS), for energy production and transmutation of nuclear waste , a great number of data sets were missing. Spallation targets for neutron-sources require extensive data in the same domain. Patents were approved in Germany and France . Thus a campaign of systematic measurements was undertaken to obtain isotopic production cross-sections for a number of systems with an accuracy of about 10% and an improved understanding of reaction mechanisms in order to interpolate to other systems and energies below 1 A GeV.

For this purpose, at 800 A MeV Au + p , Pb + p at 1 A GeV  and at 0.5 A GeV, Pb + d at 1 A GeV  and spallation from 1 A GeV U + p  and 1 A GeV U + d  were already studied and published. The missing part is still under analysis. Spallation of Fe on p and d was measured between 0.3 and 1.5 A GeV. Very recently, the systems Xe + p and Xe + d were measured between 0.2 and 1 A GeV to conclude this experimental program.

In this article we report on the (U + p)-fission products measured at 1 A GeV. The system plays the role of a prototype for high-energy nucleon-induced fission of an actinide. At high energies, data on fission of 238U induced by protons can be used as a benchmark for other actinide nuclei present in incineration situations.

The results on fission-residues in spallation of 1 A GeV 338U on protons together with our results on evaporation-residues  bring a comprehensive overview on this system. Earlier results on U-projectile fission were obtained on Pb  and on Be  targets. Altogether they should lead to a coherent reconstruction of the intermediate systems after the primary cascade and nucleon evaporation preceeding fission. The reproduction of the data with standard codes, the intra-nuclear cascade-evaporation model LAHET  is far from being satisfactory. Improvements of codes have been published , and are applied here.

Finally, the new data on isotopic yield measurements for 238U and 208Pb together with present and coming data on their energy dependence should provide a reference in order to control nuclide production in the forthcoming applications of proton-induced spallation.

## 2 Experiment

### 2.1 Experimental set-up

Uranium-ions delivered by the Penning source are accelerated in the UNILAC and post-accelerated in the SIS of GSI-Darmstadt. The beam energy of the 238U76+ ions on target is 1 A GeV and their velocity $`\beta _0`$ = 0.876. The average time structure is a pulse of 7 s every 13 s. The beam intensity delivered is 106 to 108 ions/pulse. It is controlled and monitored prior to the target by means of a secondary electron chamber, called SEETRAM .

A plastic target could not be chosen, since the production yields from C prevail upon the H yields in the mass region intermediate between fragmentation and fission. The uncertainties in the sharing between C and H in a plastic-target would not be consistent with our accuracy requirements.

The liquid hydrogen target used in the present experiment consist of a (1.25 $`\pm `$ 0.03) cm thick circular cell closed by two thin parallel titanium windows. The cell is located at the bottom of an helium cryostat. Surrounding the cell, thin aluminised mylar reflectors and external titanium windows ensure thermal and vacuum insulation . The hydrogen thickness of (87.2 $`\pm `$2.2) mg/cm2  is chosen to obtain a 10% reaction probability. The Ti target walls have a total thickness of (36.3) mg/cm2. Their contribution to the counting rates remains below 10%. It has been measured systematically using a “dummy” target of the same composition as the empty target cell.

### 2.2 Separation and identification in A and Z

At energies close to 1 A GeV, fission fragments are observed up to Z = 72 and they are nearly totally stripped. In the worst case at Z = 72, less than 15% of the ions still carry electrons . They are momentum analysed with the fragment separator FRS, a double-stage achromatic spectrometer with an intermediate dispersive image plane S2 and a final image plane S4 . A schematic view of the FRS and detectors is shown in Fig. 1.

In S4 the separated fragments are identified in Z by their energy losses measured in a four-stage ionization chamber, MUSIC . The mass number A of the analysed fragments is determined from a measurement of velocity and magnetic rigidity between S2 and S4. The measurement is performed by two position sensitive plastic scintillators . The times and positions in S2 and S4 have to be known accurately in order to correlate the time of flight with the precise length of the flight-path. Fission fragments fill the full phase space defined by the acceptance of the FRS. The presence of the 5 mm thick scintillator in S2 slightly alters the achromaticity of the FRS. Nevertheless 36 elements from Z = 28 to 64 are simultaneously transmitted to S4. Signals from the S4 scintillator trigger the data-acquisition system. Mass and charge numbers are calibrated by comparison to the parameters of the primary uranium beam and by using the known structure of fission yields in the asymmetric fission domain.

### 2.3 Constitution of the momentum spectra

The momentum acceptance of the FRS is 3 %. Applying the basic relation

$`B\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \gamma A}{Z}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{cm_0}{e}}`$ (1)
with Z and A numbers determined, a 3 % fraction of the $`\beta \gamma `$ spectrum is obtained for each measurement. The total spectrum of transmitted fission fragments covers a range of 7 % to 20% of the reduced momentum of the projectile, $`\beta _0\gamma _0`$. The measurements consist of a 2 % step-by-step scanning of the FRS magnetic fields tuned on cadmium, (Z = 48). After normalisation to the incoming dose given by the SEETRAM, and dead-time corrections, complete $`\beta \gamma `$ distributions are reconstructed by assembling about 10 files of overlapping B$`\rho `$ settings to produce a $`\beta \gamma `$ spectrum for each of the isotopes;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn(\beta \gamma )}{d(\beta \gamma )}}={\displaystyle \frac{n_i(\beta \gamma )}{N_i(1T_i)}}`$ (2)
where ni ($`\beta \gamma `$) is the ith bin of the $`\beta \gamma `$ spectrum, Ti is the dead time fraction and Ni the number of incident ions for this measurement. All in all 4$``$106 events were accumulated.
Fragments are spread over 20 cm in the image plane at S2 covered by the first position-sensitive scintillator. For an identified isotope the distribution in S2 depends only upon $`\beta \gamma `$, and the accuracy on S2 position governs the accuracy of the magnetic rigidity. In the present case, a precision in position of 2.5 mm (FWHM) leads to a resolving power of $`\beta \gamma `$ / $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta \gamma `$ = 2600, given the dispersion in momentum of the first stage of the FRS by percent, D = 6.5 cm/$`\%`$. In this experiment the response of the scintillator was slightly non-linear, and a routine was systematically used in the analysis software to correct for this, .
The FRS magnetic fields tuned on Z = 48 guide this element to the center of S4 and display on both sides the neighbouring elements, gradually apart from the center of S4. The 36 elements are transmitted together to the final focus S4, and momentum distributions of the produced isotopes are simultaneously measured in one series of B$`\rho `$ settings of the FRS. The $`\beta \gamma `$ spectra can be converted to the projectile frame and are presented in cm/ns as velocity spectra in the system of the projectile. This coordinate system is appropriate for comparison with previous results concerning fission from target nuclei. Moreover, at high excitation energy, fission fragments are emitted isotropically in the fissioning system . This allows for analytical formulations to be used in the analysis of the $`\beta \gamma `$ distributions.

### 2.4 Description of the velocity spectra

The reconstructed velocity spectra are the corner stones of our analysis. An example of the velocity spectrum is shown in Fig. 2b. Two narrow asymmetric peaks are observed roughly equidistant from velocity zero, i. e. the projectile velocity. Velocities are defined in reference to the beam direction i. e. forwardly and backwardly emitted fragments have positive and negative velocities, respectively. The velocities of the fission fragments arise from their Coulomb repulsion at scission. Velocity vectors of a specific isotope populate a thin spherical shell in the fissioning system, which may be slightly shifted compared to the projectile system by the primary reaction recoil. The sphere is pictured in Fig. 2a by a circle, the cut of the sphere by a plane which contains the beam. Only forward and backward cups of the sphere, defined by the angular acceptance of the FRS $`\alpha `$, are transmitted, and the longitudinal projections of their velocity distributions are shaping the two peaks (Fig. 2b).

For selected elements the velocity spectra of all isotopes are presented on scatter-plots in Fig. 3. Rates are given in terms of velocities and of neutron number N. They all show strongly populated areas along two parallel lines associated to backward and forward emitted fission fragments. The lines, almost symmetric in respect to the axis (V = 0, i.e. projectile frame), show a fission fragment velocity decreasing with increasing atomic number Z of the fragment, a trend due to momentum conservation in fission. The parallel lines contrast with U + Pb scatter-plots  where 1) neutron-rich nuclei are strongly enhanced for zirconium and tellurium due to electromagnetic fission and 2) fragmentation residues sit in between the forward and backward regions for neutron-deficient isotopes. In spite of the absence of evaporation residues, at decreasing masses of the lighter elements, events with small velocities are found. Besides the small contribution of fragmentation residues produced in target windows, this is a first indication for the contribution of secondary reactions which will be discussed in the following section.

Data taken on the “dummy” target show the same pattern as in Fig. 3 with a contribution of fragmentation. Yields are defined by the integrated velocity spectra. Isotopic distributions of yields in the ”dummy” and in the target are compared in Fig. 4. As intended, the yields in the “dummy” are only a few % of the yields in the target, except in the neutron-deficient region where they reach larger values, but less than 20% . Asymmetric fission, leading to neutron rich isotopes, is also clearly enhanced for titanium relatively to hydrogen. The hydrogen contribution is obtained by subtracting the yields on the ”dummy” from the target yields. Uncertainties are estimated from the fluctuations of the intensity ratio of the two peaks, as will be discussed later. The error bars on yields measured for the “dummy” are negligible when reported to yields on hydrogen.

Evaluating velocities, the $`\beta \gamma `$ distributions on target and “dummy” are found to be very similar for a given isotope, and the yield of the “dummy” is on a few percent level. Therefore, the contribution of the titanium windows could be ignored in the evaluation of fission-fragment velocities in U + p.

### 2.5 Fission velocity and transmission

The geometrical aperture of the spectrometer seen from the target defines a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ simply related to the angular acceptance $`\alpha `$ assuming axial symmetry. $`\alpha `$ is the limiting value for the emission angle $`\varphi `$ of transmitted fission fragments in the laboratory system. $`\varphi `$ corresponds to angles $`\phi ^F`$ and $`\phi ^B`$ in the fissioning system with F and B set for forward and backward, respectively, see Fig. 2a. The angular transmission TΩ is defined as the ratio of the yield measured for a given fission fragment to the total production yield for this fragment.

The determination of TΩ is a key to obtain the cross-sections. It depends upon fission fragment velocities and it must be evaluated for each fragment. TΩ is a function of the three variables $`\alpha `$, $`\beta _0`$ representing the beam and $`\beta _f`$ the fission process with Vf = $`\beta _f`$.c, the fission velocity, i.e. the radius of the sphere shown in Fig. 2a. As shown in Appendix 1, for a bundle of particles with an angular divergence $`\alpha `$ starting from a point-like source and entering the FRS on its principal trajectory, the transmission TΩ can be calculated rigourously, without any approximation, when setting the variances to zero. In the fissioning system, TΩ is obtained by integrating the surface elements of the spherical velocity shell within the two solid angles, and we obtain :

$`T_\mathrm{\Omega }=T_\mathrm{\Omega }{}_{}{}^{B}+T_\mathrm{\Omega }{}_{}{}^{F}=1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\phi ^F+\mathrm{cos}\phi ^B}{2}}`$ (3)
In Fig. 2b the velocity distribution of transmitted 128Te is given as an example. Three quantities are evaluated from these distributions:
1) The spectrum dn($`\beta \gamma `$) / d($`\beta \gamma `$) integrated over the whole range of $`\beta \gamma `$, evaluated for each of the isotopes gives the measured yields.
2) A shift of the mean velocity of forward and backward emitted fission fragments, compared to the projectile velocity (V = 0) gives the velocity of the fissioning parent nucleus, the recoil velocity.
3) The centroid of each of the two peaks defines a mean fission-fragment velocity, the apparent velocity $`\beta _{app}^{F,B}`$ = Vapp/c different for forward and backward emitted fragments. We define the mean value of the two apparent velocities,

$`\beta _{app}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{app}^F+\beta _{app}^B}{2}}`$ (4)
The two peaks are shaped by the variances of the three variables $`\alpha `$, $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _f`$, as will be shown later by a Monte-Carlo simulation. With all variances set to zero -Fig. 5a- the peaks become rectangles, as the phase-space density of a spherical homogeneously filled shell per interval d$`\beta _{}`$ with $`\beta _{}`$ the longitudinal velocity, is constant. The projection of the spherical shell on the beam axis is a rectangle. In this case the apparent velocity of forward and backward emitted fission fragments (see Fig. 2) is given by:

$$\beta _{app}^{F,B}=\beta _f\frac{\beta _f\beta _f\mathrm{cos}\phi ^{F,B}}{2}=\beta _f\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\phi ^{F,B}}{2}$$

and the mean value follows:

$`\beta _{app}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _f}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{cos\phi ^F+cos\phi ^B}{2}})`$ (5)
With eq. (3) defining the transmission, we obtain the fission velocity depending on $`\beta _{app}`$ and TΩ:

$`\beta _f={\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _{app}}{2T_\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ (6)
from which the limiting cases are deduced $`\beta _f`$ = $`\beta _{app}`$ for TΩ = 0, and $`\beta _f`$ = 2$`\beta _{app}`$ for TΩ = 1.

In Appendix 1 we show that with $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ = ($`\phi ^F`$ \+ $`\phi ^B`$)/2 the fission fragment velocity $`\beta _f`$ and the transmission TΩ are given in very good approximation by:

$`\beta _f=\beta _{app}[1+(\mathrm{tan}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }/2)^2]`$ (7)
$`T_\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+[\mathrm{cot}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }/2]^2}}`$ (8)
with

$`\mathrm{tan}(\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }/2)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{lim}}{2\beta _{app}}}`$ (9)
$`\beta _{lim}`$ is defined by $`\alpha `$ and the velocity of the fissioning parent nucleus $`\beta `$ approximated by $`\beta _0`$

$`\beta _{lim}=\alpha \sqrt{\gamma ^21}\alpha \beta _0\gamma _0`$ (10)
Eq.(7) and (8) demonstrate the central importance of the ratio $`\beta _{lim}`$/2$`\beta _{app}`$.

Summarising the procedure:

* From the $`\beta \gamma `$ distribution, the mean apparent velocity $`\beta _{app}`$ = ($`\beta _{app}^F`$ \+ $`\beta _{app}^B`$)/2 is evaluated for each isotope.
* TΩ and $`\beta _f`$ are simple functions of the mean opening angle $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ = ($`\phi ^F`$ \+ $`\phi ^B`$)/2.
* $`\beta _{lim}`$ is related to the acceptance angle $`\alpha `$ of the spectrometer and to the projectile velocity $`\beta _0`$

### 2.6 Simulation of the angular cut of the FRS

In order to include the variances on the FRS angular acceptance and the kinematics of fissioning nuclei, we have simulated the physical cut in phase space due to the angular acceptance of the FRS. The purpose is to relate Vf and the transmission to the measured Vapp.
The Monte-Carlo calculation is based on the following assumptions:
1) In the system of the fissioning parent nucleus, approximated by the system of the projectile nucleus, fission fragments are isotropically emitted with a given velocity Vf.
2) The spherical shell of velocity vectors is converted to the laboratory system moving relativistically with a velocity $`\beta `$. Fragments emitted within the FRS acceptance angle $`\alpha `$ are transmitted. At this stage we obtain a transmission value and the momentum spectrum in the laboratory system.
3) This spectrum is reconverted into the projectile system.
4) Variances of velocities and of the acceptance angle are further parameters which are included.

The simulation enlightens the effects of the experimental constraints on the measurement. On Fig. 5a the forward and backward rectangles correspond to the share of transmitted fission-fragments with $`\sigma _\alpha `$ = 0. A filled rectangle would be obtained for $`\beta _f`$ smaller than $`\alpha \beta \gamma `$ and TΩ would then reach 100 %. The second curve in the same frame results from the introduction of a variance of the acceptance angle $`\sigma _\alpha `$ = 2.5 mr derived from the known geometry of the FRS . It shows that the filling of the spectra at intermediate velocities comes mainly from the large variance of the FRS acceptance angle.

Fig. 2b versus Fig. 2a shows that the external slopes depend only on the fluctuations of the reduced momenta of the fission fragments and/or of the fissioning nuclei. Several sources contribute to these fluctuations - fission fragment velocities, target location straggling and recoil momenta of the fissioning nuclei -, and lead to a broadening of the peaks as illustrated on Fig. 5b. The relative contributions of these sources are quantified in the discussion, see sect. 4.8.

With $`\sigma _{\beta \gamma }`$ = 7.10-3 the external slopes are almost vertical and the value of Vf = 1.2 cm/ns introduced in the simulation can be extracted from the distance between the external sides at half maximum. On the contrary, if $`\sigma _{\beta \gamma }`$ becomes larger than the width of the rectangles of Fig. 5a, this half-maximum rule is no longer valid, as seen for $`\sigma _{\beta \gamma }`$ = 14.$`10^3`$. A value of $`\sigma _{\beta \gamma }`$ = 7.10-3 is selected as an “empirical broadening” to optimize the simulation. The result is illustrated in both examples of Fig. 6a and 6b.

The relation between Vapp and Vf either from eq. 6 or from the simulation are very close as shown in Fig 7(a) and the trends at TΩ = 0 or 1 are correct in both cases. Simulated and calculated values of TΩ are the same for fission velocities larger than 0.8 cm/ns ( Fig. 7b). For smaller velocities the calculations, which do not include the large variance of the acceptance angle, cannot describe the transmission. Approaching TΩ = 1 the simulation accounting for the variances provides better results. It is seen on the velocity spectra of isotopes of neodymium to gadolinium where a few isotopes (the heaviest isotopes showing the largest fission velocities) still show a residual valley between forward and backward peaks. In the following transmissions and fission fragment velocities are obtained using the values of Vapp determined for each isotope and the fitted curves of Fig. 7.

## 3 Experimental results

### 3.1 Fission fragment velocities

The velocity spectrum of each isotope has been analysed to extract a value of the apparent velocity. The apparent velocities have been converted into fission fragment velocities. For a given element, the fission fragment velocity decreases smoothly from a maximum value for the heaviest isotopes down to values smaller by 10% for the lighter isotopes, Fig. 8. Further down to the most neutron-deficient isotopes, the velocities fall abruptly. In case of U+p, this fall cannot be related to the occurence of evaporation residues since this process does not populate the neutron-deficient region of fission fragments. The small contribution from fragmentation yields in the Ti-windows (Fig. 4) cannot explain the observed fall in velocity of 20%. This fall is due to secondary reactions in which heavier primary fission fragments loose nucleons in a secondary fragmentation reaction in the target. Atomic numbers and masses are reduced, whereas the velocity spectra are only blurred. These contributions - due to larger Z with smaller fission-fragment velocities - are superimposed with the spectrum of the primary isotope. This contamination reduces the apparent velocity of the isotope. It becomes significant in the neutron-deficient region where productions by direct fission is low and secondary-reaction products are abundant. However, the small velocities of the lightest isotopes of neodymium cannot be explained by this argument, as secondary reactions of fission fragments contribute little. Here secondary reactions of spallation products could pollute the yields of neutron-deficient fission fragments.

The velocity of an element is taken as the mean value of the velocities for the four isotopes most abundantly populated, in order to select the dominant symmetric fission regime. This velocity is plotted as a function of Z in Fig. 9a. The uncertainties are less than 4%. Three lines are indicated showing the velocity dependence expected for three values of the nuclear charge of the fissioning parent nucleus Z0 = 92, 86 and 80 . The scission configuration of the fissioning nuclei is approximated by the outline of two deformed nuclei ( $`\beta _1`$ = $`\beta _2`$ = 0.65) at a given distance. Using momentum conservation, the fragment velocities are calculated for the total kinetic energies released from the scission configuration.

None of the three lines coincides exactly with the data. Fissioning nuclei with Z0 between 84 and 90 can contribute to the production of fission fragments. The general trend towards smaller fission fragment velocities going from neutron-rich isotopes to neutron-deficient isotopes is observed for all elements (Fig. 8) corroborating that heavy (Z = 90) and light (Z = 84) parent nuclei do contribute. The first ones contribute to the more neutron-rich and the last to less neutron-rich isotopes.

The slope of the external edges of the velocity distributions introduced empirically in the simulation (Fig. 5b) as a variance $`\sigma _{\beta \gamma }`$ are now evaluated systematically as a function of Z and plotted in fig. 9b). Unfolding these measured values and the underlying rectangle of the transmitted momenta, fig. 5a, the effective broadening $`\sigma _{V_f}`$ is obtained, and given by the line in fig. 9b. Both variances are related by $`\sigma _{V_f}`$ = $`\frac{1}{\gamma }`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{\beta \gamma }`$ $``$ c. Within the limit of our accuracy this width does not depend on the atomic number. Its mean value is $`\sigma _{V_f}`$ = 0.13 cm/ns, which corresponds to $`\sigma _{\beta \gamma }`$ $``$ 8.10-3 in good agreement with the value of 7.10-3 empirically deduced in sect. 2.6, from the simulations of the measured spectra (Fig. 5b).

The recoil of the fissioning nucleus is determined from the mean value of the forward and backward fission velocities. The values plotted in Fig. 9c are averaged over the four most abundant isotopes of an element. This recoil is small and it decreases from -0.03 at Z = 62 to -0.13 cm/ns for Z = 30. We obtain a mean value of -0.08 cm/ns.

### 3.2 From yields to cross sections

Isotopic cross sections of (U + p)-fission are obtained by dividing the production yields on hydrogen by the proper transmission, as presented in sections (2.5) and (2.6). Our final values are compared to those used in the analysis of the parallel experiment U + d at 1 A GeV evaluated by J. Pereira applying a different method . A good agreement is found between both sets of transmission-values evaluated in terms of the fission-fragment velocities.

The correction for secondary reactions occuring in the target has to be applied. All fission fragments, neutron-rich more than proton-rich undergo secondary spallation and the yield is depleted. For neutron-deficient isotopes, the fission yields are increased by secondary evaporation residues. The correction for secondary reactions enhances the share of neutron rich isotopes and reduces neutron-deficient ones. This is the reason for the “hook” shape of this correction already presented in a previous article  and calculated more precisely in a forthcoming paper . When they exceed 50 %, cross sections for corresponding isotopes are no longer considered. Our experimental method to determine cross sections of primary residues reaches its limit.

Moreover, small secondary effects need to be corrected for: For fragments not centered in S4, i. e. apart from the optical axis, the FRS acceptance angle and consequently the transmission are slightly reduced. The FRS angular acceptance falls from 14.8 mr on the optical axis down to 13.3 mr at 8 cm apart from the axis in S4 . A smooth parabolic function was used to account for this relative loss in transmission. The correction given in table 1, reaches 14% for elements like nickel and samarium.

Fragments reacting in the scintillator SC2 at S2 escape the magnetic filter of the second half of the FRS. The related loss increases linearly from 11 % for nickel up to 17 % for gadolinium. It is calculated using the total reaction cross section formulation of Karol . The results are given in table 1 for the range of elements investigated.

A loss by ionic charge exchange occurs, either in the target or in the plastic scintillator S2. Eventhough the probability is small for fission fragments at relativistic energies, this factor, negligible up to tellurium, reaches 9 % for gadolinium. Values, calculated using the code GLOBAL  are to be considered for heavy elements as shown in table 1.

### 3.3 Discussion of uncertainties

a) Systematic uncertainties

* The uncertainty on the SEETRAM calibration is evaluated to 7 %
* The uncertainty on the transmission is evaluated to 5 %. It is mainly due to the 4 % uncertainty on the fission-fragment velocity.
* The uncertainty on the target thickness was established in a dedicated experiment to 2.5 %  for a beam hitting the target in its center. However, an uncertainty of 6 mm in the vertical position of the cryostat supporting the H2 cell leads to an increased uncertainty of 4 % on the target thickness .
* The loss factors given in table 1 are determined with an overall uncertainty of 3 %.

All contributions quadratically added up lead to a total systematic uncertainty of 10 %. This systematic uncertainty is not included in the error bars of the cross sections presented in tables of Appendix 2 and in figures 10-12.

b) Statistical uncertainties

* The single-event uncertainty on the angular transmission is large and mainly determined by the large variance of $`\alpha `$. $`\sigma _\alpha `$ is evaluated to 17 % .In comparison the uncertainty on $`\beta _{app}`$ is negligible. Taking 50 observed events corresponding to the smallest cross section (20$`\mu `$b) as the worst case, the statistical uncertainty for the transmission reaches 4 %. Statistical uncertainties are smaller than the systematic uncertainty.
* Uncertainties for the yields have been determined from the ratio of the rates integrated for forward and backward emitted fragments. The difference between the measured ratio and the kinematically expected ratio, is taken as twice the relative uncertainty of the yields. The absolute uncertainties are given in Fig. 4, Fig. 10-12 and in Appendix 2. For the most abundant isotopes the relative uncertainty is approximately 2 %, that is much less than the systematic uncertainty. For the less abundant isotopes, the statistical uncertainties are dominant and overcome the total systematic uncertainty.

Isotopic cross sections are given in Appendix 2 and their distributions for each of the elements appear in Fig. 10-12. They show a rather regular bell shape with some enhancement in the region of neutron-rich isotopes for elements known as asymmetric fission products. At the maximum of the elemental distributions, cross sections vary from 0.5 mb to 20 mb. Values down to 20 $`\mu `$b are measured, mostly in the neutron-rich region not polluted by secondary reactions. On the neutron-deficient side, high rates of secondary reactions limit cross-section measurements to values larger than a few mb.

### 3.4 Comparison with previous isotopic distributions

Measurements of primary isotopic cross sections had been performed for alkalines only. Using fast on-line separator techniques combined with the chemical selectivity of surface ionisation ion-sources  relative cross sections were obtained covering a wide range of isotopes. The normalisation of the yields to cross sections was based on the results of G. Friedlander . Production yields on U-fission were measured at a proton energy of 24 GeV for isotopes of the complementary elements rubidium and cesium . The distributions are compared to our results in Fig. 13. At 24 GeV, besides fission, evaporation residues populate all elements down to the region covered by fission. Moreover, the excitation energy range covers a wider domain, and evaporation of charged particles and neutrons leads to more neutron-deficient isotopes. The elemental cross sections for both rubidium and cesium are about 75 % of the values presently measured at 1 GeV, in the same ratio as total fission cross sections . In the region of the 8 most neutron-rich fragments, isotopic cross sections are the same as the ones presently measured. The probability to excite the U nucleus with a small excitation energy to produce neutron-rich fragments is independent of the proton energy, as indeed mentioned already in .

Later the production of the isotopes of cesium and rubidium was investigated for the system 238U + p at 1 GeV by using also on-line mass separator techniques . For rubidium our data are very consistent, but cross sections are found larger by a factor 1.8 for the six cesium-isotopes with N$``$85, as seen in Fig. 13. In the present experiment, isotopic yields are measured simultaneously for the 36 elements populated in fission, insuring a coherent mass calibration for cesium as for all other elements including rubidium. Moreover the extraction of the asymmetric fission component of all elements achieved in sec. 4-3 confirms the present mass calibration. Finally the agreement of our isotopic distributions with those of the light elements analysed in the work of , also validates our results for the cesium isotopic distribution. In the on-line mass-separator measurement  the separation efficiency might have overestimated for these isotopes.

## 4 Features of fission

### 4.1  Elemental cross sections

The elemental cross sections, integrated over isotopes for each element are plotted in Fig. 14a. The distribution shows a Gaussian shape with a shoulder around Z = 52 revealing the contribution of asymmetric fission. The mean value of Z is $`\overline{Z}`$ = 45. It suggests that 90Th is the mean element undergoing fission. The variance of the Z-distribution is 7 charge units.

In Fig. 14b the ratio of the mean number of neutrons $`\overline{N}`$/Z for each element is given. The largest mean number of neutrons per element and coherently the largest variances are found around Z = 55. A mean number of neutrons $`\overline{N}`$ = 63 is deduced.

The local variance $`\sigma _N^Z`$, plotted on Fig. 14c, increases from 2.5 to almost 5. The presence of the asymmetric fission component is revealed by the maxima at the two peaks of asymmetric fission.

### 4.2 Total cross sections

The fission cross section summed over all isotopes is found to be (1.45 $`\pm `$ 0.15) b. However, a few elements are not involved in the analysis, in the region above Z = 64 and below 28. Above Z = 64 the cross section contributing is evaluated to 7 mb . Below Z = 28, the analysis of M. V. Ricciardi  gives a contribution of 72 mb. Thus the total fission cross section amounts to (1.53 $`\pm `$ 0.15) b. This value compares well with previous results of direct measurements of fission cross sections (1.46 $`\pm `$ 0.07) b and (1.48 $`\pm `$ 0.06) b , respectively. A value of (1.52 $`\pm `$ 0.12) b was obtained in a recent measurement at GSI . It is worth noticing that the present technique offers a high degree of selectivity and sensitivity to measure isotopic yields but a lower precision for total cross section measurements than simpler dedicated experiments. If the cross section for evaporation residues of 0.46 b, obtained by summing isotopic values found by J. Taieb in his analysis of the 238U 1 A GeV + p reaction  is added, a reaction cross section of (1.99 $`\pm `$ 0.17) b is obtained. It agrees with the value of 1.96 b obtained by using the Glauber approach as described by P. J. Karol  with updated nuclear-density distributions , and with the INCL-calculation 1.94 b .

### 4.3  Symmetric and asymmetric fission

The isotopic distributions of elements above Z = 50 can be decomposed into fragments arising from two components: high-excitation symmetric fission and low-excitation asymmetric fission. A decomposition into two Gaussian distributions has been performed, as illustrated in Fig. 15. For the neutron-rich component the mean mass number Ap and the dispersion $`\sigma _N^Z`$ are found to agree with the values known in asymmetric fission, see for example C. Donzaud et al. . For the light fission fragment group, the share of asymmetric fission does not exhibit so clearly and the known values of Ap and $`\sigma _N^Z`$  are used as further inputs.

In spite of the small yields of the asymmetric component, cross sections for the groups of light and heavy fragments are obtained. Z-integrated cross sections are found the same for the two groups, as to be expected, and equal to (105 $`\pm `$ 10) mb. For symmetric fission a cross section of (1.42 $`\pm `$ 0.15) b follows. The distribution of elemental cross sections becomes a symmetric curve slightly shifted (empty points in Fig. 14d compared to the total distribution on Fig. 14a. The parameters $`\overline{N}`$ / Z and variances $`\sigma _N^Z`$ related to the two modes are clearly different. Their values are compatible with two mean primary fissioning nuclei : for the asymmetric mode 234U and for the symmetric mode 221Th, with 6 post-scission neutrons added.

The $`\overline{N}`$ / Z values of the fragments are not constant , but a slow and regular increment of $`\overline{N}`$ / Z with the Z of the fragment is observed for the high energetic symmetric fission process, see Fig 14e. An electric polarisation $`\delta A_2^{Pol}`$ = \- $`\delta A_1^{Pol}`$ = $`\overline{A_2}`$ \- Z2$`\times `$A0/Z0 $`>`$0 for the fission fragment pairs $`\overline{A_2}`$, $`\overline{A_1}`$ is indicated. Beyond the regime of nuclear structure dominating asymmetric fission (E $`>`$ 40 MeV) a constant charge polarisability of P = -0.04 is expected . P can be related to the slope of the $`\overline{N}`$ / Z-dependence in the range of symmetric fission (Z0/2 = 45):

$$P=\frac{\delta A_2^{pol}(Z)}{A_20.5A_0}=(Z_0/2)\times (Z_0/A_0)\times \frac{d(\overline{N}/Z)}{dZ}$$

The thin line in Fig. 14e shows a slope calculated with P = -0.04.

On Fig. 14f the variance $`\sigma _N^Z`$ in the region of symmetric fission increases with the Z-value of the elements. On the contrary for asymmetric fission, as known for a long time , a narrow distribution of isotopes $`\sigma _Z^A`$ is populated with a large neutron excess $`\overline{N}`$/Z . Beyond Z = 55 the values of $`\overline{N}`$ / Z and of $`\sigma _N^Z`$ decrease again and the valley of stability is crossed at Z = 58. For elements still heavier, fission fragments populate the neutron-deficient side of the valley.

### 4.4 Mass distribution

The mass distribution is obtained by summing isotopic cross sections for a value of A fixed, Fig. 16. Since isobaric yields do not depend upon $`\beta `$-decay half-lives, mass distribution are accessible also by radiochemical methods and spectroscopic methods . The distribution shows a wide Gaussian-like shape slightly asymmetric: the slope is steeper on the side of light masses.

The mean mass is $`\overline{A}`$ = 108.0 $`\pm `$ 0.3 and the variance of the distribution $`\sigma _A`$ = (17.5 $`\pm `$ 0.5) a.m.u. Enhancements on both sides result from the asymmetric fission component. Since elements below Z = 28 are neglected, which contribute by about 5% to the total cross section , the value of $`\overline{A}`$ given is slightly larger than the average over all fission fragments produced. We assume that\*** fission proceeds from a mean parent nucleus of mass A = 220 with $`\nu `$ = 6 the averaged number of emitted neutrons from the symmetric and asymmetric modes. On table 2 the cross sections, mean values of A and Z, variances and local variances are presented and compared to the results of symmetric fission in (U + Pb) .

### 4.5 Kinetic energies

The average kinetic energy of fission fragments as a function of their atomic number is given by Ekin (Z) = $`\frac{1}{2}`$.m0 $`\overline{A}(Z)V_f^2`$ where $`\overline{A}`$(Z) is the average mass number obtained from the measured isotopic distribution, and Vf is the corresponding fragment velocity as shown in Fig. 9a. The mean kinetic energies are given in table 3 and shown in Fig. 17. They decrease smoothly for higher atomic numbers and show a broad maximum around Z = 32. The mean value of the kinetic energy, calculated by using the Z-distribution of Fig. 14a gives (76 $`\pm `$ 3) MeV, corresponding to a mean total kinetic energy release of (152 $`\pm `$ 6) MeV.

### 4.6  Comparison with simulation codes

The set of isotopic distributions of fission fragments provides a real challenge for simulation codes. A fast and simple formulation developed by Silberberg and Tsao  is shown in Fig. 18 and 19. The model reproduces the orders of magnitude of the isotopic distributions, but the asymmetric fission component is overestimated in magnitude and symmetric components are too narrow. Isotopes of elements at and below Z = 35 are poorly reproduced. A jump at Z = 35 in the code produces the unrealistic gap in the mass distribution at A = 90.

The second code widely used is the LAHET-code (Los Alamos  or Oak Ridge version) . The agreement with this code is not satisfying. In Fig. 18 and 19 the Oak Ridge version has been used for comparison. For neutron-deficient isotopes, cross sections are overestimated, and symmetric fission is underestimated. An odd-even staggering is produced not seen in the experimental data.

Parallel to our experimental program different approaches to new simulation codes are published or are under way. The first reaction step in spallation, the intranuclear cascade induced by the primary proton collision, is simulated by the new version of the code INCL . At this stage, a distribution of prefragment nuclei are predicted with an associated excitation energy and intrinsic spin. This is then the physical input to a system of codes simulating the second step of spallation, the de-excitation phase. New results on the physics of particle evaporation were introduced in the statistical de-excitation code ABLA  and on fission in the fission code PROFI .

The fission code PROFI is a semi-empirical Monte-Carlo code which calculates the nuclide distribution of fission fragments. It is theoretically based on the application of the statistical model of nuclear reactions to the concept of fission channels. In this model, the population of the fission channels is assumed to be basically determined by the number of available transition states above the potential energy surface near the fission barrier. Several properties, however, are finally determined at the scission time. A full description of the model is given in .

The barrier as a function of mass asymmetry is defined by three components. The first is the symmetric component defined by the liquid -drop potential by means of a parabolic function with a curvature obtained from experimental data . This parabola is assumed to be modulated by two neutron shells, located at mass asymmetries corresponding to neutron numbers N = 82 (spherical neutron shell) and N = 90 (deformed neutron shell). We assume that the mass-asymmetry degree of freedom at the fission barrier is on the average uniquely related to the neutron number of the fragments. The shells are represented by Gaussian functions. These shells are associated with the fission channels Standard I and Standard II, respectively , while the liquid-drop potential is associated with the symmetric fission channel. The population of the fission channels is proportional to the level density around the corresponding dips in the potential at saddle at the available excitation energy. Shells are washed out with excitation energy . The heights and the widths of the Gaussian curves representing the shell effects and additional fluctuations in mass asymmetry acquired from saddle to scission, are derived from experimental data . The mean values of the neutron-to-proton ratio for the channels Standard I and Standard II are deduced from measured nuclide distributions after electromagnetic induced fission of 238U . The charge polarisation for the symmetric fission channel and the fluctuations in the neutron-to-proton ratio for all channels are also considered by describing the potential in this degree of freedom again by a parabolic function . Assuming that the equilibration in this variable is fast compared to the saddle-to-scission time, this potential was calculated in the scission configuration. Since the shell effects of the nascent fragments at scission, which are strongly deformed on the average, are not known experimentally, only macroscopic properties are included in the calculation of the charge polarisation of the symmetric fission channel.

Consequently, the two fission pre-fragments are obtained. Their excitation energies are calculated from the excitation and deformation energy of the fissioning system at the scission point. The fission probability and the consecutive de-excitation of the fission fragments via particle evaporation are conducted by the routines of the ABLA code . Coupling to the cascade code INCL  gives a reasonable reproduction of our data, as demonstrated in Fig. 18 and 19 (diamonds). Except for an excess of asymmetric fission the simulation meets the experiment. Either INCL provides a too small excitation energy for the most peripheral collisions, or the excitation energy in the statistical de-excitation chain is underestimated or, finally the parameter set in PROFI has to be reajusted in order to reduce the share of asymmetric fission.

### 4.7  Production of very neutron rich isotopes

The experimental method of 1 A GeV U-projectile fission opens a very efficient way to produce secondary beams of neutron-rich isotopes. In order to provide experimental cross sections for such a project, the production of very neutron-rich fragments by 1 A GeV U+p collisions is evaluated renormalising the values obtained from a previous dedicated measurement for U+Be . The production of fission fragments differs in both systems because of a relatively larger contribution of asymmetric fission with U + Be. Normalising the elemental cross sections for U + Be to the corresponding element for U + p, the production of very neutron-rich can be deduced reliably down to a level of 1 nb. Not only the falls of the isotopic production with increasing neutron excess are the same for U + Pb and U + Be , but also the production is found to be the same in the gap of overlapping masses presently covered in U + p.

Fig. 20 illustrates four examples of isotopic distributions. Such exotic beams in spite of their low intensities will be of importance to test predictions for the vanishing of shell-effects at N = 82 and 50, and the possible appearance of neutron halos in the region of tin and nickel isotopes with large neutron excess.

### 4.8 Parent fissioning nuclei

The reconstitution of the charge Z0 and mass A0 of the parent fissioning nuclei is of importance to constrain critical parameters of the intranuclear cascade phase: the transfer of excitation energy and of momentum to the pre-fragments, the value of the density of intermediate states and of the viscosity of highly excited heavy nuclei. The present experimental findings should converge with all other results of 238U at 1 A GeV + p  on an unified description of a first stage of nucleon-nucleus collision described by a cascade followed by an evaporation stage among which fission occurs.

What is learnt about the fissioning parent nuclei in the present work is listed below:

* Isotopic distributions lead to a mean fission parent nucleus 220Th.
* For a given element the increase of the mean velocities with the mass of the isotopes (Fig. 8) indicates that parent elements in the range of Z0 $``$ 90 do contribute to the fission.
* Velocities of fragments Fig. 9a show that the region of 50$``$ Z $``$ 64 arises from parent elements of $`\overline{Z_0}`$ $``$ 90, while the region of 30 $``$ Z $``$ 37 indicates lower fissioning elements at $`\overline{Z_0}`$ $``$ 84.
* The variance of the fission fragment velocities $`\sigma _{Vf}`$ is extracted from the external slopes of the observed velocity distributions and presented in Fig. 9b. The value of 0.13 cm/ns, the same for all fission-fragment elements, is correlated to the variance of the recoil momenta generated in the nuclear cascade for the ensemble of the fissioning parent nuclei. At $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$A = 18, the analysis of spallation presented by J. Taieb  gives $`\sigma _p`$ = 350 MeV/c as the variance of the recoil momenta of the central parent nucleus, 220Th. This variance is transferred to the fission fragments and leads to a contribution of 0.09 cm/ns in the fissioning system. The ensemble of parent elements and isotopes contributes also by the fluctuations of their TKE-values. A pair of fission-fragments issued from a fixed parent nucleus shows a variance of its velocities. Taking from thermal-neutron induced fission of 235U the measured value of $`\sigma _{TKE}`$ = 6.0 MeV as a lower estimate, a contribution of 0.02 cm/ns to the variance of fission fragment velocities is calculated. A much larger contribution is generated by the difference in TKE-values of the many nuclei present. The variance in the Z0-distribution of the fissioning parent nuclei of $`\sigma _{Z_0}`$/Z0 of 4.6% is taken from the measurement of B. Jurado . Including the dispersion due to a spread over several isotopes in each element, and converting TKE-values into fragment-velocities, the contribution of the fissioning ensemble is evaluated to 0.09 cm/ns. The location straggling in the thin H2-target induces a negligible contribution of 0.01 cm/ns to this variance. Adding quadratically all contributions, a total variance of 0.13 cm/ns is obtained which coincides with the value extracted from the observed velocity distributions.
* The mean recoil velocities of the parent fissioning nuclei arise from the first phase of the reaction and contribute to the momentum losses measured . The transferred momentum of -150 MeV/c measured for the evaporation residues at $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$A = 18 should be close to the momentum of the mean fissioning parent 220Th. This recoil momentum is equivalent to a recoil velocity of -0.04 cm/ns, indicated by a line in Fig. 9c. The recoil velocities presented in Fig. 9c, in the range of -(0.04-0.13) cm/ns are on the average larger by a factor of 2 and show a trend towards larger values for lighter elements.

### 4.9 Comparison of system U + p and Pb + p

Fig. 21 and Table 4 demonstrate the basic difference between the collision systems Pb + p and U + p. Both reactions have nearly the same reaction cross section, 1.84 b for Pb + p and 1.99 b for U + p. Fragmentation is the main reaction channel for Pb+p, with $`\sigma `$ = (1.68 $`\pm `$ 0.2) b, whereas fission dominates the U+p reaction with a cross section $`\sigma `$ = (1.53 $`\pm `$ 0.15) b.

Averaging over all cross sections from evaporation and fission residues, altogether a mean neutron number of 127 $`\pm `$ 1 is found for reaction products of 238U + p at 1 A GeV, i.e. 19 $`\pm `$ 1 neutrons are liberated in the reaction. This number does not include neutrons bound in the lightest elements ( Z $``$ 7 ), and should be an upper limit for the number of neutrons produced in thin targets. It compares with the neutron multiplicity of 20 measured with 1.2 GeV proton on depleted uranium  when extrapolated to thin targets.

## 5 Conclusions

We have measured isotopic production cross-sections for about 733 fission fragments produced in 1 A GeV 238U + p collisions with a mean accuracy of 10 %, down to values of 20 $`\mu `$b for neutron-rich and 0.1 mb for neutron-deficient isotopes. The population of isotopes resulting from fission is pictured in Fig. 22 on the chart of nuclei. The isobaric slope of the production cross section towards the neutron rich side of the chart of isotopes is found to be the same for hydrogen as for heavier targets investigated earlier.

The fission cross section, including the production of very light elements, amounts to (1.53 $`\pm `$ 0.15) b which compares well with previous results  as with the recent result of B. Jurado . The total cross section of fission plus evaporation residues amounts to (1.99 $`\pm `$ 0.17) b, close to the calculated geometrical cross section of 1.96 b  and to the INCL calculation 1.94 b .

Our results show a good quantitative agreement with previous isotopic distributions of cross sections measured for rubidium and cesium with on-line mass-separator techniques except for a discrepancy in cross sections for the 6 most neutron-rich isotopes of cesium . The coherence of the present experimental method validates our mass-calibration relatively to all other isotopes. Parameters characterising fission and its variances are extracted. The elemental distribution and the kinetic energies of the reaction products are of importance concerning chemical corrosion and the composition of nuclear waste produced by spallation of actinides.

The analysis of the momentum and velocity spectra of fission-fragments as function of A and Z gives an indication on the nature and the domain of excitation energies of the fragments arising from the first step of the (U + p)-interaction and undergoing fission. Comparison with previous measurements shows that the symmetric fission cross section (1.42$`\pm `$0.20) b is almost the same for U + p as for U + Pb, (1.4 $`\pm `$ 0.2) b. In this last case the first phase of violent abrasion leads to a wider range of more excited and lighter fragments. The fission probabilities of these fragments are smaller than for actinides close to the U-projectiles which are mainly produced in (U + p)-collisions. Finally the cross section to observe symmetric fission remains the same for both systems.

There is certainly not a perfect overlap between the distribution of fragments identified as evaporation-residues and the fissioning parent nuclei. The parent nuclei close to U have high fissilities. For elements of decreasing Z numbers, fissile isotopes become more and more neutron-deficient. Compared to the evaporation-residues the fissioning-parent nuclei are shifted towards the neutron-deficient side. They are born from prefragments of higher excitation energies and their recoil momenta may be higher than for those ending as evaporation residues.

Measured isotopic and mass distributions are compared to results obtained with simulation codes commonly used. Large discrepancies are shown, and the need for improved reaction models is underlined. Models developed recently in the collaboration are discussed  and the improvements achieved are demonstrated.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We wish to thank F. Ameil, K. Günzer and M. Pravikoff for their participation to the data taking and K. H. Behr, A. Brünle and K. Burkard for their technical support during the experiment. We are thankful to the group of P. Chesny who built the liquid-hydrogen target. We thank O. Yordanov and A. Kelic for their help and interest in the late stage of our work. This work was partially supported by the European Union under the contract ERBCHBCT940717.

## 7 Appendix 1

### 7.1  Demonstration of equations (7) and (8)

The transformation from the c.m.-system to the lab-system is given by:

$`\gamma \mathrm{tan}\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _f\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\beta _0\pm \beta _f\mathrm{cos}\phi }}`$ (11)
with $`\pm `$ signs for forward and backward angles $`\phi ^F`$ and $`\phi ^B`$, respectively. To transform back to the c.m.-system for the limiting case $`\varphi _{lim}`$ = $`\alpha `$, we solve equ. (11) for this case:

$`\gamma \mathrm{tan}\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi }{K\pm \mathrm{cos}\phi }}`$ (12)
with K = $`\beta _0`$ / $`\beta _f`$. It is convenient to solve equ. (12) as a quadratic equation in $`\mathrm{tan}(\phi /2)`$, which has 2 solutions corresponding to $`\phi ^F`$ and $`\phi ^B`$ given for $`\varphi _{lim}`$ = $`\alpha `$ in the lab-system.

$`\mathrm{tan}(\phi ^{F,B}/2)={\displaystyle \frac{K\pm 1}{\sqrt{K^21}}}\mathrm{tan}\delta /2`$ (13)
with an auxiliary variable

$`\mathrm{sin}\delta =\gamma \sqrt{K^21}\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$ (14)
Equ. 13 shows that the angles $`\phi ^F`$ and$`\phi ^B`$ depend via eq. (14) on all 3 variables $`\alpha `$, $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _f`$. The transmission of each of the cones may be evaluated with the total transmission obtained by summing T$`{}_{}{}^{F}{}_{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}^{}`$ and T$`{}_{}{}^{B}{}_{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}^{}`$. This method we applied in our evaluations until now . However, introducing the two solutions of equ. (13) into equ. (3) we obtain another very compact expression for TΩ:

$`T_\mathrm{\Omega }=1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\delta }{1+(\gamma \mathrm{tan}\alpha )^2}}`$ (15)
Equ. (15) depends via the auxiliary variable $`\delta `$ on the fission velocity. To illuminate the variable $`\delta `$ we introduce $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ = ($`\phi ^F`$ \+ $`\phi ^B`$)/2 and $`\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = ($`\phi ^F`$ \- $`\phi ^B`$)/2, or $`\phi ^F`$ = $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ \+ $`\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\phi ^B`$ = $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ \- $`\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Equ. (13) transforms to the new variables using the trigonometrical sum relations for $`\mathrm{tan}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

$`\mathrm{tan}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{K}{\sqrt{K^21}}}\mathrm{tan}\delta \mathrm{tan}\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }=\gamma \mathrm{tan}\alpha `$ (16)
Angle $`\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ depends only on two variables, $`\gamma `$ and $`\alpha `$, which represent the relativistic beam and the FRS spectrometer. The fission velocity $`\beta _f`$ enters into the angle $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Between $`\phi ^{F,B}`$ and $`\phi _{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ another trigonometrical relation holds

$$\mathrm{cos}\phi ^F+\mathrm{cos}\phi ^B=2\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }$$

This relation introduced in equ. (3) gives for the transmission :

$`T_\mathrm{\Omega }=1\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (17)
Comparing equ. (15) and (18) a relation between $`\phi _{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`\delta `$ follows:

$$\mathrm{cos}\delta =\frac{\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\sqrt{1+(\gamma \mathrm{tan}\alpha )^2}$$

The three expressions equ. (3),(15) and (18) are exact, identical representations in different angular coordinates. All expressions derived for the transmission until now depend on $`\beta _f`$. The conversion of $`\beta _f`$ into the measured quantity $`\beta _{app}`$ makes use of equ. (6) and (14) :

$`\mathrm{sin}\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\beta _0^2\beta _f^2}}{\beta _f}}\gamma \mathrm{tan}\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\beta _0^2\beta _f^2}\gamma \mathrm{tan}\alpha }{2\beta _{app}}}(2T_\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (18)
Also equ. (6) and (19) are exact without any approximations.

For our experiment with $`\gamma `$ = 2.07 and $`\alpha `$ = $`\overline{\alpha }`$ = 14.8 mrad, $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is larger than $`\delta `$ by only 0.1 mrad. It is a good approximation to replace $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the mean value of $`\phi ^F`$ and $`\phi ^B`$, by the auxiliary variable $`\delta `$. A next approximation for the transmission follows:

$`T_\mathrm{\Omega }=1\mathrm{cos}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (19)
which deviates from the exact value by less than 0.2 % in the worst case of Z = 28. Neglecting terms in $`\alpha ^2`$ and K-2 useful approximations derived from eqs (16) and (17) are:

$`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ = $`\delta `$ and $`\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = $`\gamma \alpha `$

$`\phi ^F`$ = $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ \+ $`\gamma \alpha `$ and $`\phi ^B`$ = $`\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ \- $`\gamma \alpha `$

From equ. (20) and (6) we derive equ. (7) and (8).

With $`\beta _{lim}`$ $``$ $`\alpha `$ $`\sqrt{\gamma ^21}`$ follows:

$`\mathrm{tan}\phi _\mathrm{\Sigma }/2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sqrt{\gamma ^21}}{2\beta _{app}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{lim}}{2\beta _{app}}}`$ (20)
Finally with equ. (21) $`\beta _f`$ and TΩ can be presented as a function of $`\beta _{app}`$, see equ. (7) and (8) given in section 2.5.

$$T_\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{2}{1+[2\beta _{app}/\beta _{lim}]^2}$$

and

$$\beta _f=\beta _{app}[1+(\beta _{lim}/2\beta _{app})^2]$$

q. e. d.

## 8 Appendix 2