Elliptic flow and incomplete equilibration in AMPT
description
Transcript of Elliptic flow and incomplete equilibration in AMPT
2009-4-29 1
Elliptic flow and incomplete equilibration in AMPT
Jian-Li Liu
Harbin Institute of Technology
2009-4-29 2
Outline
Eccentricity scaled v2 and incomplete
equilibration
Variation of v2/εwith cross section
Variation of v2/εwith centrality
Summary
2009-4-29 3
Eccentricity scaled v2 and incomplete equilibration
Heiselberg & Levy, PRC59, 2716(1999)Collisionless limit:2 2
22 2
rel trv dNv y x
Sdy y x
σε
ε< > −< >
∝ =< > + < >
2 .v
constε
∝
Ideal hydrodynamic limit:
From collisionless limit to hydrodynamic limit:
. 12 2
1 10
hydrov v K
K Kε ε
−
− −=+
Bhalerao et al., PLB627, 49(2005)
work well in 2-D transport model. Gombeaud & Ollitrault, PRC77, 054904(2008)
2009-4-29 4
Knudsen coefficient
2 2
2 2
1
1 1 1
1:
14
: .ss
s
RK
R x y
dNS x y
Sdy
isotropi
Rc
c
coc
dNK
n
d
s
cS y
t
λ
λ σρσ
ρ πτ
τ
σ−
= = +
=
= = < >< >
=
⇒ =
%%
%Time scale of formation of elliptic flow:
Only longitudinal expansion: (dN/dy is constant)
Bhalerao et al., PLB627, 49(2005)
2009-4-29 5
AMPT model data
Differences:1. cs is not constant from parton to hadron, BUT cs is approximately constant in parton stage2. dN/dy is not constant.3. 3-D expansion4. Non-isotropic differential cross section.
1/ 3sc ≈
Molnar & Gyulassy, NPA697, 459(2002)
Lin et al., PRC72, 064901(2005)
2009-4-29 6
Relation between isotropic cross section and anisotropic cross section
For isotropic cross section:
0
3
2 trσ σ=
AMPT model:
μis turned to fixed total cross section.Transport cross section is related to μ and s.
2009-4-29 7
Variation of v2/εwith cross section for quark
Fitting parameters :
Gombeaud et al. 2-D transport model (2008):
Ideal hydrodynamics :
Initial dN/dy :
final s :
initial dN/dy , final s :
K0 is sensitive to parameters used
27%
19%
σ=3,6,10,14mb
Issah et al., arXiv:nucl-ex/0604011
2009-4-29 8
HIJINGhadroninitialpartonfinal
parton
hadron(c)
hadron(f)
Fitting parameters :
15% 11%
ε , S is calculated for hadron from HIJING
K0 ( c ) is much larger than
K0 for quark:
1. Multiplicity difference
2. Variation of v2 (c)/v2 (quark) from 1.27 to 1.1 for cross section from 3mb to 14mb.
27% 19%
Variation of v2/εwith cross section for hadron
2009-4-29 9
20%
14%
Fitting parameters :HIJINGhadroninitialpartonfinal
parton
hadron(c)
hadron(f)
15%
11%
Keeping dN/dy unchanged and replace
V2(f) with V2 (c):
Deviation of elliptic flow from its
hydrodynamic limit is almost the same
as hadron(c).
Keeping elliptic flow unchanged and
Replace dN(f)/dy with dN(c)/dy:Deviation of elliptic flow from its hydrodynamic limit is almost unchanged.
ε , S is calculated for hadron from HIJING
Variation of v2/εwith cross section for hadron
2009-4-29 10
Variation of v2/εwith centrality for quark
2009-4-29 11
Changing the calculation of Knudsen coefficient
2009-4-29 12
Changing the calculation of eccentricity
Calculate eccentricity for quarks in all rapidity range.
consistent with ideal hydrodynamic result
2009-4-29 13
Only changing the calculation of eccentricity
2009-4-29 14
1. Knudsen coefficient at initial stage :
0τ τ=
Possible reasons for changed calculation of Knudsen coefficient
2. “Effective” calculation of Knudsen coefficient defined by Bhalerao et al.: The transverse expansion of system maybe important and is related to the size of system.
2009-4-29 15
Original calculation ofKnudsen coefficient
New calculation ofKnudsen coefficient
Dependence on cross section :1. Relative distance between quark is related to cross section.2. Quarks are coalesced according to their relative cross section
Variation of v2/εwith centrality for hadron
2009-4-29 16
Original calculation ofKnudsen coefficient
New calculation ofKnudsen coefficient
Dependence on cross section.
Variation of v2/εwith centrality for hadron
2009-4-29 17
Summary
v2 /εvariation with cross section for fixed parameter in AMPT modelcould be described well by the formula suggested Bhalerao et al. Thedeviation of v2 /εof quark from its hydrodynamics limit is 19% ~ 27%for cross section from 6mb to 10mb.
v2 /εvariation with centrality for different cross section and collisionenergy in AMPT model could not be described by the formula suggested by Bhalerao et al, except the calculation of knudsencoefficient is changed.
2009-4-29 18