Richard Seto University of California, Riverside RHIC/STAR Workshop Bejing, PRC August 29-31, 2002
description
Transcript of Richard Seto University of California, Riverside RHIC/STAR Workshop Bejing, PRC August 29-31, 2002
Richard SetoUniversity of California, Riverside
RHIC/STAR WorkshopBejing, PRC
August 29-31, 2002
Is it Interesting?
Where Does Mass come from?
Massive quarks in lite QCD? (u,d)
Chiral (R-L) Symmetry
Massless quarks! So Where does mass
come from?Massive quark?
Massless quarks
The Vacuum: Source of Mass
Start at high Temperature with massless quarks
Massless quarks
T>Tc
The Vacuum: Source of Mass
Start at high Temperature with massless quarks
Assume a background field = - goo of quarks and gluons
Similar to the higgs field for E-W theory
Couples to quarks(massless for now) and gluons
Potential term for has special Temperature Dependence
T>Tc
T<Tc
T~Tc
V()
LowTemperatureHigh
Massless quarks
T>Tc
The Vacuum: Source of Mass
T~Tc
As Temperature Cools past Tc
T>Tc
T<Tc
T~Tc
V()
LowTemperatureHigh
The Vacuum: Source of Mass As Temperature Cools
past Tc
Spontaneous symmetry breaking (I.e. chiral) of the quark condensate at low Temperature generates hadron masses
T>Tc
T<Tc
T~Tc
V()
LowTemperatureHighT~TcT~Tc
T<Tc
Condensate
Weird!
The idea that empty space should be full of complicated material is wilder than many crackpot theories, and more imaginative than most science fiction…
F. Wilczeck in Physics Today (April 1998)
Living in the cold QCD vacuum
It is generally believed in the fish population that there is an inherent resistance to motion and that they swim in a “vacuum”.
The vacuum – perceived to
be empty by the general
fish population
A clever (and crazy idea)
One clever young fish is enlightened. “The vacuum is complicated and full of water!” he says –” really there is no resistance to motion!”
“Phooey” say his friends, “we all know the vacuum is empty.”
How does he prove it? Answer – he builds a machine to boil the
water into steam – to “melt” the vacuum In steam his “friends” move freely.
OK OK – they die because They can’t breathe in air They are poached because of the heat
So maybe he boils only what’s in a small bottle as an experiment, and he calls this machine RICC (Relativistic Ice Cube Collider…
you get the point…
The HOTHOT QCD vacuum
Can you create it? YES! AT RHIC RHI collision leaves
a region of excited qq and gluons – ie hot vacuum
What is the hot hot vacuum like? How hot is it? (Temperature) How sticky is it? (Energy Loss – aka Jet
quenching) How much energy can it store? (Latent
heat) What is its equation of state? What is (are) the phase transition(s) to a
cold vacuum like? 1st, 2nd order, cross over?
How does it generate mass? How/why does it confine? What interesting properties does it exhibit? …
Why is it timely
Theory + Experiment = Theory + Experiment = Understanding Understanding Theoretical Calculations Theoretical Calculations in regions
probed by experimentexperiment Experiments Experiments in regions calculable by
theorytheory New era of Precision
Precision CalculationsCalculations Precision Measurements Measurements
Precision Detectors Redundancy of measurements (4 detectors!) AA, pA (dA), pp, eA
Phases of Nuclear Matter
TWO phase transitions! The deconfinement
transition - particles are roam freely over large volume
The chiral transition - masses change
All indications are that these two are at or are very nearly at the same TC
T
Tc
Lattice Calculations
T
Tc
(F. Karsch, hep-lat/9909006)
/T4
T/Tc
Lattice Results Tc(Nf=2)=1738 MeVTc(Nf=3)=1548 MeV
0.5 4.5 15 35 GeV/fm375
• Transition – Sharp Crossover at RHIC
• That’s OK – 1st order for all practical purposes
Lattice Calculations:Tc = 170 15% MeV critical ~ 0.6 GeV/fm3
Critical point
1st order
Sharp Crossover
Stages of the Collision
Various stages Must be described using different physics
Hard Soft
Detectors see sum of all phenomena Importance of hard probes Keep an open mind –no single idea (or theorist) can
explain everything
Data
4 detectors STAR – Large acceptance PHENIX – photons, leptons PHOBOS – small, low-pt BRAHMS – small, high y
Runs 130 GeV run 200 GeV run – results from recent QM
Is it like the Vacuum?
Quantum Numbers of the Vacuum?
Baryon number = zero?
0.8pp
~YES
AGS
SPS
√s [GeV]
PHENIX preliminary
STAR prelim 1.0
0.1
p/p ratio
~0.002
~0.05
STAR 200prelim
Note: Thermal fitB~30 MeV
Worlds dependence
How Hot is it? Is it Hot enough?
dET/dy ~ The Initial Energy Density
PHENIX: Central 200 GeV Au Au
T
=0
dE=573±2GeV
d
Thermalization tim
e ?
High Initial energy High Initial energy density-density-Its “HOT “enough!Its “HOT “enough!
Bj~ 5.2 GeV/fm3
Bj~ 26.0 GeV/fm3
Latticec
R2
c
20
1 1 TBjorken
dE
dyR
~6.5 fm
Remember, from the Lattice T = 150-200 MeV ~ 0.6-1.8 GeV/fm3
You said theory was getting better. Can you make reliable calculations of the initial conditions?
QCD - Notoriously hard to calculate Regime where QCD simplifies:
High Gluon Densities at low-x gluons ~ x- ,i.e. there are more of
them as you go to lower x They begin to overlap Gluons saturate
Classical Approx (McLerran, Venogopolan etc)
Robust calculations in QCD using “renormalization group” methods
Depends on a single scale
The Colored Glass CondensateA layman’s view
xG(x)
x
High x
low x
QS2=(1/R2)(dNgluon/dy) ~ 2-D gluon density
At RHIC, QS~1-2 GeV
The Approximation
The Approx Non-perturbative (high
density) Small coupling
Requires S(QS) to be “small”
Expected to fail for QS small
Low enegy Peripheral High y
Qs
S RHIC 130central
At RHIC, QS~1-2 GeVS(QS)~0.3 –0.4
Running of S
Why “Colored Glass Condensate?”
Colored? - Gluons are colored Condensate?
Gluons are interacting bosons and fill up the available states
Glass? - A glass is a material with A long time scale ~ Window glass induced by “frustration”
In Color Condensate we have “relativistic frustration”
Model Break Nucleus into Gluon Field, and Source
“Source” – quarks and gluons at high-x, Lorenz time dialated clock runs slow
Gluon field at low-x. Clock runs fast, but motion is governed by “source”. They are “frustrated”
HappyHard working
Gluons
Work Work Work Work
W….o…r… k … W . .
FrustratedGluons
“frustrated”Spin Glass
“happy”
quark
Time dialted quark
Calculations (post-diction) dN/dy for s, centrality, y, A energy in terms of
one variable: QS. Set QS at a single point
QS larger – more central, higher energy, mid-rapidity A constant C=CLCMult must be set
CL is gluon liberation coeefficient – probablility that a virtual gluon becomes “real” upon collision (can be calculated on the Lattice)
Cmult is the gluon multiplication coefficent from final state interations
We would like this to be >1, otherwise thermalization produces no new particles
One to one correspondence between gluons and final state particles (I.e. entropy conserved)
Does it work?Saturation models can predict the scaling with centrality and rapidity!
Kharzeev & Levin, nucl-th/0108006Schaffner-Bielich et al, nucl-th/0108048
Np
dN
ch/d
/(0
.5N
p)
Kharzeev/Levin
energy density
~18GeV/fm3
Does this explain why dN/dy is less
than we might have thought?
QS depends on Npart,
S, y If S did not run,
there would be no dependence!
Dependence on NpartS, y ?
/ Constant0.5* ( )
gluon
part sS
dN dy
N Q
Prediction at 200 GeV
beautiful
0-6%
15-25%
35-45%
Kharzeev/Levin
Prediction at 22 GeV Do we expect it to work?
At low energy QS becomes small S large
Expected to fails first for Peripheral High y
Np100
1
0200 400300
20-6%
15-25%
35-45%
Fails (worst for peripheral, high y)
All data PHOBOS Preliminary
0-6%
35-45%
15-25%
Is it thermalized? When?… it better be early, before hadronization,
if you are interested in a QGP…
Azimuthal anisotropy: v2 “Elliptic flow”
Late equilibration i.e. free streaming in early stages causes almond shape to become spherical
Strong elliptic flow Early thermalization
2 2
2 2 2cos 2x y
x y
p pv
p p
Momentum space: final asymmetry
multiple collisions (pressure)
py
px
x
y
Coordinate space: initial asymmetry
Elliptic Flow
Hydrodynamical model (Kolb et al)Good pt<2, more centralRapid thermalization
0 ~ 0.6 fm/c~20 GeV/fm3
(possibly later if some comes from CGC?)
RHIC: Very strong elliptic flow
Flow of Identified Particles
• Mass dependence at low pT is well described by hydro (lines, P. Huovinen)
Preliminary
What about Chemical and Thermal Equilibrium? (at freezout)
What have we measured? Global Features:
Chemical Equilibration
Model assuming Chemical Equilibration describes yields Pretty well s ~ 1
From yields, 130 GeVTch freezeout=177 MeVBaryon=36 MeV
Particle Ratios
Central events
Is it themalized? Themal Model fit Kinetic Freezout
Tthermal freezout ~ 130 GEV ~AGS/SPS
radial increases to ~ 0.5
From inverse slopes
As at SPS Strange particlesFreeze out earlierOmegas freeze-out differently? Explosive radial expansion
high pressure
130 GeV
K*
STAR 200
You’ve talked about the initial state, and the final state. What about the stuff in the Middle? Do you have a QGP?
ColorlessHadrons
ColoredQGP
Beams of colored quarks
Hard Probes, aka Jet quenching
Deep Inelastic Scattering of the QGP?
“hard” probes Formed in initial
collision penetrating sensitive to state
dE/dx by strong interaction
jet quenching
Jets by Jets by leading particles Look forLook for a a
suppression of high suppression of high pT hadron production.pT hadron production.
Scaling from pp to AA
Low pT
•Thermal •Hydro(Flow)•Exponential in MT
Npart
Scaling
High pT
•Jetlike•Jet frag (No flow)•Pwr law in pT
Nbin Scaling
Transition ~ 2 –4 GeV?
Nbinary at high pT
Npart at low pT
Does anythingscale with binaries?
Single electrons from charm (a hard process?)
Fit to pythia charm scaled with BINARIES
Looks like it works!
(with apologies to the great work on charm production-note “dead cone effect”)
pp effects Intrinsic kT
pp to pA effects “Cronin effect”, initial state quark
scatteringi.e. pT broadening
Enhances higher pT
Nuclear shadowing Gluon shadowing
is not measured large role at RHIC
Models – scaling pp to AA
Measure pA at RHIC!
Peripheral:
Consistent with Ncoll scaling
0-10% CENTRAL
Ncoll
=975±94
Central
Consistent with Ncoll scaling Central:
Consistent with Ncoll scaling
Scale up with Ncoll=12.3
70-80% PERIPHERAL
Ncoll
=12.3 ±4.0
Consistent with Ncoll scaling
PHENIX P
relim
inar
y
Nuclear Modification Factor
central binary centralAA T
pp
Yield NR (p )
Yield
/
Effect of nuclear medium on yieldsRun 2 Data Shows a manySigma Effect!
SPS – shows Cronin Effect
RHIC – Run 2 200 GeV)
RHIC – Run 1 (130 GeV)
0-10%
(dE/dx)initial~7 GeV/fm15x Cold matter (Hermes)
Nuclear Modification Factor
RHIC central -Suppressionperipheral – Ncoll scaling
PHENIX Preliminary
binary scaling
central binary centralAA T
pp
Yield NR (p )
Yield
/
Effect of nuclear medium on yields• Comparison of peripheral to central
0-10%
70-80%
PHENIX P
relim
inar
y
Centrality Dependence of RAA
Smoothly varies with centrality
PHENIX P
relim
inar
y
Smoothly varies with centrality
Dependence changes with pt?
How does Jet energy loss depend on energy, path length etc?
What can we learn? Types of energy loss
Constant (probably not physical)
QCD motivated Bethe-Heitler (BH) type
dE/dx~E LPM type
dE/dx~ L ~E gluon coherence>MFP or Egluon>Ecr~pT,gluon
2 MFP
5 GeV at RHIC (?)
Static and Expanding plasma considered
Can learn about Energy loss mechanism Density of gluons L dependence …
BH MFP
LPM
coh
01 dim expansion static
2
A
E ER
Phase transition from quench?
Calculate q from QGP, pion gas
Jet quenching sensitive to
energy density NOT phase
transition? But this
calculation does not have confinement, chiral symmetry restoration…
2ˆSE qL
Massless pion gas
Ideal QGP
Nuclear Matter
Phase Transition?
Energy Density (GeV/fm3)En
erg
y L
oss
Coeffi
cien
t (G
eV
2/f
m)
BDMS
Theory Comparisons for RAA
Wang: X.N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C61, 064910 (2000).
dE/dx~constant, static source
GLV: Gyulassy, Levai, Vitev: P.Levai, Nuclear Physics A698 (2002) 631.
dE/dx~L (LPM) , static source
Vitev: GLV, Nucl. Phys. B 594, p. 371 (2001) + work in preparation.
Static source
Wang: dE/dx = 0
GLV: L/ = 4
GLV: L/ = 0
Wang: dE/dx =0.25 GeV/fmP
hen
ix P
relim
inary
More Theory Comparisons for RAA
Compare to B-H type loss (dE/dx~E)
RAu/ ~6 Assumes
independent scattering
dE/dx ~ 6%E What does
this mean????
dE/dx~0.03E GeV/fm
dE/dx~0.06E GeV/fm
dE/dx~0.10E GeV/fm
dE/dx~L (LPM)
dE/dx~0.3 GeV/fmConstant
Jeon, Jalilian-Marian, Sarcevic nucl-th/0208012
Phenix Preliminary
0-10% CENTRAL
Ncoll
=975±94
What about charged particles?
Charged particles: Central to Peripheral Ratio
peripheralbinaryperipheral
centralbinarycentral
NYield
NYield
//
Suppression seen in 3 independent measurements
Difference in 0/charged h ratio particle composition
(A variation on RAA)
Single Particle Spectra (0-5 %) Jet Fragmentation?
PHENIX Preliminary
Au+Au at sqrt(sNN) =200GeV
proton/antiproton contribution above pT > 2 GeV dominates charged spectra !
p /
Central
Peripheral
Protons boosted to higher pt by flow?Pion quenched at high pt?
Particle Composition at high pT
0/(h++h-)/2 ratio ~ 0.5 up to 9 GeV/c do protons
continue to make up a large fraction of the charged hadron yield?How far in pt is hydrodynamics (flow) applicable?
Are there other ways to Look at this?
v2 “Elliptic flow” from jets energy loss?
2 2
2 2 2cos 2x y
x y
p pv
p p
Momentum space: final asymmetry
multiple collisions (pressure)
py
px
x
y
Coordinate space: initial asymmetry
distance of fast parton propogation
(energy loss)
Jet 1
Jet 2
V2 Non-flow component?
Methods of extracting v2
Momentum vs Event plane
Correlations 4th order cumulant
Sensitive only to flow
~20% of v2 from non-flow components Jets?
v2(pT) up to 12 GeV/c star
• Statistical errors only
• Finite v2 up to 12 GeV/c in mid-peripheral bin
v2(pt) proposed scenario: flavor dependence
Baryon production by a non-perturbative mechanism (junctions or hydro)M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.N. Wang and P. Huovinen, Phys. Lett. B 526 (2002) 301-308
Au+Au at sqrt(sNN)=200GeV
pT (GeV/c) pT (GeV/c)
v2
Negativespi-&K-,pbar
Positivespi+&K+,p
v2
v2 of identified hadronsr.p. ||=3~4min. bias
PHENIX Preliminary PHENIX Preliminary
(*) P.Huovinen, P.F.Kolb, U.W.Heinz, P.V.Ruuskanen and S.A.Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B503, 58 (2001)
hydro model including the1st order phase transition with Tf=120MeV (*)
pion proton
Azimuthal Asymmetries - Elliptic Flow
saturation of v2 observed hydrodynamic flow
increase with pT
Adler et al., nucl-ex/0206006
Azimuthal Asymmetries - Elliptic Flow saturation of v2 observed hydrodynamic flow
increase with pT
non-equilibrium contribution jets (unquenched) decrease with pT
Adler et al., nucl-ex/0206006
Azimuthal Asymmetries - Elliptic Flow
saturation of v2 observed hydrodynamic flow
increase with pT
non-equilibrium contribution jets (unquenched) decrease with pT
asymmetric energy loss
increase of v2 saturation from interplay models necessary
to disentangle effects
Adler et al., nucl-ex/0206006
Can you look at Di-jets?
2-Jet-Events in pp in the STAR TPC
p+p dijet from 200 GeV run
D. Hardtke, STAR Plenary Tuesday
Two-particle azimuthal correlations
Identify jets on a statistical basis
Trigger particle with pT>pT(trigger)
associate particles with pT>pT(associated)
C2 is probability to find another particle at (,)
pT(associated)>2 GeV/c pT(trigger): 4-6 GeV/c,
3-4 GeV/c, 6-8 GeV/c ||<0.7 ||<1.4
2
1 1( , ) ( , )
Trig
C NN Eff
Jet
Away side Jet
Trigger jet shows little centrality dependence
Away side-Jet Suppression
Away side-jet strong suppression
with centrality jet quenching?
?
trigger-jet
Away side -jet
Centrality dependence similar to quenching of neutral pion spectrum!
Stages of the CollisionWhat can we say?
0.1 1
0.1Energ
y
Densi
ty
(GeV
/fm
3)
10Time (fm)
10
100
Stages of the Collision
Simulation and model byK. Geiger, …. From L. McLerran
modified by R.Seto
0.1 1
0.1
En
erg
y
Den
sity
(G
eV
/fm
3)
10Time (fm)
10
100
Stages of the Collision
t~0 Nuclei are Lorentz
contracted White – quarks Green – gluons
large number of (low x) gluons in the center of tne nuclei
Stages of the Collision
0.1 1
0.1
En
erg
y
Den
sity
(G
eV
/fm
3)
10Time (fm)
10
100
Initial State t~0.1-0.6 fm ~20-30 GeV/fm3
Hard processes – PQCD Soft Processes – CGC(?) Themalization(?) Flow starts to develop
0.1 1
0.1
En
erg
y
Den
sity
(G
eV
/fm
3)
10Time (fm)
10
100
Stages of the Collision
QGP??? t~0.6-2.0 fm ~2-3 GeV/fm3
Q#’s of vacuum Parton energy loss
~10 GeV/fm Chiral Symmetry?
Stages of the Collision
0.1 1
0.1
En
erg
y
Den
sity
(G
eV
/fm
3)
10Time (fm)
10
100
Mixed Phase? t~2-5 fm Phase Transition? Latent Heat? Chiral Condesate
Develops? Mass develops?
Confinement sets in?
0.1 1
0.1
En
erg
y
Den
sity
(G
eV
/fm
3)
10Time (fm)
10
100
Stages of the Collision
Freezeout Chemical
T~175 MeV B~30 MeV S~1
Thermal T~130 MeV ~0.5
Finally – What do we know? Have we created a very high energy density –
greater than needed for a QGP “yes” Does it have the Quantum numbers of the
vacuum? “yes” Initially what is it? “gluons”
Very strongly Interacting CGC? “tentatively” (dA, eA, theory) Does it thermalize? “tentatively” (theory)
Is there jet quenching? “probably” (dA) Do quarks thermalize? “I don’t know” Is the system in equilibrium at freezout “yes” Have we got it? (the QGP) … “maybe” Is there deconfinement?, chiral symmetry
restoration?….
Connections…
“The experimental method to alter the properties of the vacuum may be called vacuum engineering. An effective way may well be to to use Relativistic Heavy Ions… If indeed we are able to alter the vacuum, then because the vacuum is ever present and everywhere, our microscopic world of elementary particles would become inextricably connected to the macroscopic world of the cosmos.”
T. D. Lee in Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory
(1981)
0-10% CENTRAL
Ncoll
=975±94
What can we learn? Types of energy loss
Constant (probably not physical)
QCD motivated Bethe-Heitler (BH) type
dE/dx~E LPM type
dE/dx~ L ~E gluon coherence>MFP or Egluon>Ecr~pT,gluon
2 MFP
5 GeV at RHIC (?)
Static and Expanding plasma considered
Can learn about Energy loss mechanism Density of gluons Size of system …
BH MFP
LPM
coh
01 dim expansion static
2
A
E ER
coh
coh
2
2
off single scatterer
BH type: if λ=mfp then
/ / /
LPM type: L Coherence length
now L
/ ~ / /
E
Where is the average kick from a single scatter
coh
LPMcr T
T
E fE
dE dx E Ef
E
dE dx E L fE E f E
Now p
p
2
ing
radiated gluon energy is < E : BH regime
radiated gluon energy is > E : LPM regime
What is E at RHIC? Use 1 GeV, and =1fm then we get 5 GeV
seems small for recent RHIC data
LPMcr
LPMcr
LPMcr Tp
(why?)
Or maybe ususal LPM calculations in static plasma don't work.
Parton Energy Loss
There are a variety of possibilities dE/dx ~ constant, static plasma (probably not physical) dE/dx ~ L
QCD calculations LPM type coherence dE/dx ~ E
From idependent scattering centers
Both Static and Expanding plasma considered
Partons are expected to lose energy via gluon radiation in traversing a quark-gluon plasma
Baier, Dokshitzer, Mueller, Schiff, hep-ph/9907267Gyulassy, Levai, Vitev, hep-pl/9907461Wang, nucl-th/9812021and many more…..
Theory Comparisons for RAA
Wang: X.N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C61, 064910 (2000).
dE/dx~constant, static source
GLV: Gyulassy, Levai, Vitev: P.Levai, Nuclear Physics A698 (2002) 631.
dE/dx~L (LPM) , static source
Vitev: GLV, Nucl. Phys. B 594, p. 371 (2001) + work in preparation.
Static source
Wang: dE/dx = 0
Vitev: dNgluon/dy = 900
GLV: L/ = 4
GLV: L/ = 0
Wang: dE/dx =0.25 GeV/fmP
hen
ix P
relim
inary