STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 1 Azimuthally-sensitive HBT in STAR Mike Lisa Ohio State University Motivation Noncentral collision.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Multi-Particle Azimuthal Correlations at RHIC !! Roy A. Lacey USB - Chem (SUNY Stony Brook ) What do they tell us about Possible Quenching?
Advertisements

Detailed HBT measurement with respect to Event plane and collision energy in Au+Au collisions Takafumi Niida for the PHENIX Collaboration University of.
In relativistic heavy ion collisions a high energy density matter Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) may be formed. Various signals have been proposed which probe.
STAR HBT 6 Sep 2003XXXIII ISMD - Krakow Poland1 Azimuthally-sensitive HBT (asHBT) in Au+Au collisions at  s NN =200 GeV Mike Lisa, Ohio State University.
Recent Results from STAR Rene Bellwied, Wayne State, for the STAR Collaboration  Thermalization & Timescales  High pt physics  Fluctuations  130 to.
Resonance Dynamics in Heavy Ion Collisions 22nd Winter Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics , La Jolla, California Sascha Vogel, Marcus Bleicher UrQMD.
Bulk signatures & properties (soft particle production)
S C O T T PRATPRAT MICHIGANMICHIGAN S T T E UNIVRSITYUNIVRSITY T H BTBT PUZZLE PUZZLE Z A N D E X T E N D I N G HYRODYNAMICS HYRODYNAMICS.
Particle Spectra at AGS, SPS and RHIC Dieter Röhrich Fysisk institutt, Universitetet i Bergen Similarities and differences Rapidity distributions –net.
Masashi Kaneta, LBNL Masashi Kaneta for the STAR collaboration Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. First results from STAR experiment at RHIC - Soft hadron.
STAR HBT 4 oct 2002malisa - seminar IUCF1 Two-particle correlations and Heavy Ion Collision Dynamics at RHIC/STAR Mike Lisa, Ohio State University STAR.
Collective Flow in Heavy-Ion Collisions Kirill Filimonov (LBNL)
STAR HBT 30 Aug 2001Mike Lisa - ACS Nuclear Division - Chicago 1 Characterizing the freezeout at RHIC: HBT, spectra, and elliptic flow U.S. Labs: Argonne,
Spectra Physics at RHIC : Highlights from 200 GeV data Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez ISMD ‘02, Alushta, Ukraine Sep 9, 2002.
STAR HBT 31 Oct 2001Mike Lisa - Kent State Seminar1 Emergence of a Consistent Picture from First Results of STAR at RHIC? Mike Lisa, Ohio State University.
1 2-particle correlation at RHIC Fabrice Retière, LBNL for the STAR collaboration.
S C O T T PRATTPRATT M I C H I G A N STATESTATE U N I V E R S I Y T S U N A M I THETHE B T PUZZLEPUZZLE ANDAND T H E R H I C.
HBT Dan Magestro, The Ohio State University Overview of HBT interferometry Overview of HBT interferometry The SPS & RHIC HBT program The SPS & RHIC HBT.
STAR 1 APS Spring Meeting - April malisa Recent results from STAR M.A. Lisa, for the STAR Collaboration.
M. Oldenburg Strange Quark Matter 2006 — March 26–31, Los Angeles, California 1 Centrality Dependence of Azimuthal Anisotropy of Strange Hadrons in 200.
Anisotropic Flow Raimond Snellings. Raimond Snellings; Trento What have we learned from elliptic flow so far? According to: –U. Heinz: Resulting.
July 21, 2011M.Š. EPS-HEP 2011, Grenoble11 Three-dimensional Kaon Source Extraction from STAR Experiment at RHIC Michal Šumbera NPI ASCR Prague (for the.
Hydrodynamics, together with geometric fluctuations of the Glauber model make specific predictions for a dipole and triangle terms in the observed azimuthal.
Dan Magestro The Ohio State University for the STAR Collaboration HBT relative to the reaction plane at RHIC Where we stand after Year-1 Motivation for.
09/15/10Waye State University1 Elliptic Flow of Inclusive Photon Ahmed M. Hamed Midwest Critical Mass University of Toledo, Ohio October, 2005 Wayne.
Sergey Panitkin Current Status of the RHIC HBT Puzzle Sergey Panitkin Brookhaven National Lab La Thuile, March 18, 2005.
Masashi Kaneta, First joint Meeting of the Nuclear Physics Divisions of APS and JPS 1 / Masashi Kaneta LBNL
Peter Kolb, November 18, 2003Momentum Anisotropies1 Momentum Anisotropies -- Probing the detailed Dynamics Department of Physics and Astronomy State University.
Peter Kolb, CIPANP03, May 22, 2003what we learn from hydro1 What did we learn, and what will we learn from Hydro CIPANP 2003 New York City, May 22, 2003.
Azimuthal HBT measurement of charged pions With respect to 3 rd event plane In Au+Au 200GeV collisions at RHIC-PHENIX Takafumi Niida for the PHENIX Collaboration.
STAR HBT 13 February 2003Winter Workshop - Breckenridge CO1  HBT in STAR Mike Lisa*, Ohio State University “Traditional” HBT results: 200 GeV vs 130 GeV.
Elliptic flow and shear viscosity in a parton cascade approach G. Ferini INFN-LNS, Catania P. Castorina, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, V. Greco.
STAR HBT 16 Oct 20032nd Warsaw Meeting on Correlations and Resonances 1 Azimuthally-sensitive HBT (asHBT) in Au+Au collisions at  s NN =200 GeV Mike Lisa,
Heavy-Ion Physics - Hydrodynamic Approach Introduction Hydrodynamic aspect Observables explained Recombination model Summary 전남대 이강석 HIM
School of Collective Dynamics in High-Energy CollisionsLevente Molnar, Purdue University 1 Effect of resonance decays on the extracted kinetic freeze-out.
S. PrattNSCL/MSU Deciphering the Space-Time Evolution of Heavy-Ion Collisons with Correlation Measurements Scott Pratt Michigan State University.
Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook, ISMD, Kromĕříž, Roy A. Lacey What do we learn from Correlation measurements at RHIC.
Budapest, 4-9 August 2005Quark Matter 2005 HBT search for new states of matter in A+A collisions Yu. Sinyukov, BITP, Kiev Based on the paper S.V. Akkelin,
24 Nov 2006 Kentaro MIKI University of Tsukuba “electron / photon flow” Elliptic flow measurement of direct photon in √s NN =200GeV Au+Au collisions at.
Characterization of the pion source at the AGS Mike Lisa The Ohio State University Motivation and Measurement Systematics of HBT in E895 Existing problems.
Charged and Neutral Kaon correlations in Au-Au Collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 200 GeV using the solenoidal tracker at RHIC (STAR) Selemon Bekele The Ohio State.
Understanding the rapidity dependence of v 2 and HBT at RHIC M. Csanád (Eötvös University, Budapest) WPCF 2005 August 15-17, Kromeriz.
Measurement of Azimuthal Anisotropy for High p T Charged Hadrons at RHIC-PHENIX The azimuthal anisotropy of particle production in non-central collisions.
Kirill Filimonov, ISMD 2002, Alushta 1 Kirill Filimonov Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Anisotropy and high p T hadrons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC.
RHIC FLOW & HBT 29 oct 2003malisa - DNP03 - Tucson, AZ1 Flow & Correlations in the soft RHIC (Selected highlights) Mike Lisa Ohio State University.
Bulk properties at RHIC Olga Barannikova (Purdue University) Motivation Freeze-out properties at RHIC STAR perspective STAR  PHENIX, PHOBOS Time-span.
1 Space-time analysis of reactions at RHIC Fabrice Retière Lawrence Berkeley Lab STAR collaboration.
Japanese Physics Society meeting, Hokkaido Univ. 23/Sep/2007, JPS meeting, Sapporo, JapanShinIchi Esumi, Inst. of Physics, Univ. of Tsukuba1 Collective.
Masashi Kaneta, RBRC, BNL 2003 Fall Meeting of the Division of Nuclear Physics (2003/10/31) 1 KANETA, Masashi for the PHENIX Collaboration RIKEN-BNL Research.
Global and Collective Dynamics at PHENIX Takafumi Niida for the PHENIX Collaboration University of Tsukuba “Heavy Ion collisions in the LHC era” in Quy.
Elliptic Flow of Inclusive Photon Elliptic Flow of Inclusive Photon Ahmed M. Hamed Midwest Critical Mass University of Toledo, Ohio Oct. 22,
Hadron Spectra and Yields Experimental Overview Julia Velkovska INT/RHIC Winter Workshop, Dec 13-15, 2002.
Soft physics in PbPb at the LHC Hadron Collider Physics 2011 P. Kuijer ALICECMSATLAS Necessarily incomplete.
PHENIX. Motivation Collaboration PHENIX Roy A. Lacey (SUNY Stony Brook) PHENIX Collaboration I N T E R N A T I O N A L W O R K S H O P O N T H E P H.
RHIC/INT Workshop on HBT - jan021 The low-energy end of the HBT excitation function Mike Lisa, for Roy Lacey, for the E895 Collaboration N.N. Ajitanand,
HBT results from a rescattering model Tom Humanic Ohio State University WPCF 2005 August 17, 2005.
 Collision of heavy nuclei at relativistic energies leads to formation of Quark- Gluon Plasma (QGP).  Strong confirmation arises from the recent observation.
Anisotropic flow of charged and strange particles in PbAu collisions at 158 AGeV measured in CERES experiment J. Milošević 1),2) 1)University of Belgrade.
Adam Kisiel – CERN Hirschegg 2010 – 19 Jan Femtoscopy in relativistic heavy-ion collisions as a probe of system collectivity Adam Kisiel CERN.
Offline meeting Azimuthally sensitive Hanbury-Brown-Twiss (HBT) Interferometry Lukasz Graczykowski Warsaw University of Technology Johanna.
ATLAS vn results vn from event plane method
Example analysis of toy model
Collective Dynamics at RHIC
STAR and RHIC; past, present and future.
Takafumi Niida from Univ. of Tsukuba for the PHENIX Collaborations
ISMD ‘02, Alushta, Ukraine Sep 9, 2002
Analisi del flow con il metodo dei coefficienti di Fourier
The Study of Elliptic Flow for PID Hadron at RHIC-PHENIX
Two Particle Interferometry at RHIC
System Size and Energy Dependence of -meson Production at RHIC
Presentation transcript:

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 1 Azimuthally-sensitive HBT in STAR Mike Lisa Ohio State University Motivation Noncentral collision dynamics Azimuthally-sensitive interferometry & previous results STAR results Hydrodynamic predictions for RHIC and “LHC” Summary

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 2 Central collision RHIC Hydrodynamics reproduces p-space aspects of particle emission up to p T ~2GeV/c (99% of particles)  hopes of exploring the early, dense stage Heinz & Kolb, hep-th/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 3 Central collision RHIC Hydrodynamics reproduces p-space aspects of particle emission up to p T ~2GeV/c (99% of particles)  hopes of exploring the early, dense stage x-space is poorly reproduced model source lives too long and disintegrates too slowly? Correct dynamics signatures with wrong space-time dynamics? Heinz & Kolb, hep-th/ Turn to richer dynamics of non-central collisions for more detailed information

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 4 hydro evolution Dynamical models: x-anisotropy in entrance channel  p-space anisotropy at freezeout magnitude depends on system response to pressure Noncentral collision dynamics hydro reproduces v 2 (p T,m) RHIC for p T < ~1.5 GeV/c system response  EoS early thermalization indicated Heinz & Kolb, hep-ph/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 5 hydro evolution later hadronic stage? hydro reproduces v 2 (p T,m) RHIC for p T < ~1.0 GeV/c system response  EoS early thermalization indicated Effect of dilute stage dilute hadronic stage (RQMD): little effect on v RHIC Teaney, Lauret, & Shuryak, nucl-th/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 6 hydro evolution later hadronic stage? hydro reproduces v 2 (p T,m) RHIC for p T < ~1.5 GeV/c system response  EoS early thermalization indicated Effect of dilute stage dilute hadronic stage (RQMD): little effect on v RHIC significant (bad) effect on HBT radii calculation: Soff, Bass, Dumitru, PRL 2001 STAR PHENIX hydro only hydro+hadronic rescatt

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 7 hydro evolution later hadronic stage? hydro reproduces v 2 (p T,m) RHIC for p T < ~1.5 GeV/c system response  EoS early thermalization indicated Effect of dilute stage dilute hadronic stage (RQMD): little effect on v RHIC significant (bad) effect on HBT radii related to timescale? - need more info Teaney, Lauret, & Shuryak, nucl-th/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 8 hydro evolution later hadronic stage? hydro reproduces v 2 (p T,m) RHIC for p T < ~1.5 GeV/c system response  EoS early thermalization indicated Effect of dilute stage dilute hadronic stage (RQMD): little effect on v RHIC significant (bad) effect on HBT radii related to timescale? - need more info qualitative change of freezeout shape!! important piece of the puzzle! in-plane- extended out-of-plane-extended Teaney, Lauret, & Shuryak, nucl-th/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 9 Possible to “see” via HBT relative to reaction plane?  p =0°  p =90° R side (large) R side (small) for out-of-plane-extended source, expect large R side at 0  small R side at 90  2 nd -order oscillation R s 2 [no flow expectation] pp

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 10 “Traditional HBT” - cylindrical sources KK R out R side Decompose q into components: q Long : in beam direction q Out : in direction of transverse momentum q Side :  q Long & q Out (beam is into board)

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 11 Anisotropic sources  Six HBT radii vs  Source in b-fixed system: (x,y,z) Space/time entangled in pair system (x O,x S,x L ) out pp b KK side x y ! explicit and implicit (x  x (  )) dependence on  Wiedemann, PRC (1998).

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 12 Symmetries of the emission function I. Mirror reflection symmetry w.r.t. reactionplane (for spherical nuclei):  with II. Point reflection symmetry w.r.t. collision center (equal nuclei):  with Heinz, Hummel, MAL, Wiedemann, nucl-th/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 13 Fourier expansion of HBT Y=0 Insert symmetry constraints of spatial correlation tensor into Wiedemann relations and combine with explicit  -dependence: Note: These most general forms of the Fourier expansions for the HBT radii are preserved when averaging the correlation function over a finite, symmetric window around Y=0. Relations between the Fourier coefficients reveal interplay between flow and geometry, and can help disentangle space and time Heinz, Hummel, MAL, Wiedemann, nucl-th/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 14 x out x side K Anisotropic HBT AGS (  s~2 AGeV)  p (°) R 2 (fm 2 ) outsidelong ol os sl Au+Au 2 AGeV; E895, PLB (2000) strong oscillations observed lines: predictions for static (tilted) out-of-plane extended source  consistent with initial overlap geometry  p = 0°

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 15 x out x side K Meaning of R o 2 (  ) and R s 2 (  ) are clear What about R os 2 (  ) ?  p (°) R 2 (fm 2 ) outsidelong ol os sl Au+Au 2 AGeV; E895, PLB (2000) R os 2 (  ) quantifies correlation between x out and x side No correlation (tilt) b/t between x out and x side at  p =0° (or 90°) K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side  p = 0°  p ~45° Strong (positive) correlation when  p =45° Phase of R os 2 (  ) oscillation reveals orientation of extended source No access to 1 st -order oscillations in STAR Y1

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 16 Indirect indications of x-space RHIC v 2 (p T,m) globally well-fit by hydro-inspired “blast-wave” STAR, PRL (2001) soliddashed 0.04   0.02  a (c) 0.04  S2S   0.02  0 (c) 100   20 T (MeV) temperature, radial flow consistent with fits to spectra anisotropy of flow boost spatial anisotropy (out-of-plane extended) 

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 17 STAR data Au+Au 130 GeV minbias preliminary significant oscillations observed blastwave with ~ same parameters as used to describe spectra & v 2 (p T,m) additional parameters: R = 11 fm  = 2 fm/c !! full blastwave consistent with R(p T ), K- 

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 18 preliminary full blastwave STAR data Au+Au 130 GeV minbias significant oscillations observed blastwave with ~ same parameters as used to describe spectra & v 2 (p T,m) additional parameters: R = 11 fm  = 2 fm/c !! consistent with R(p T ), K-  no spatial anisotropy no flow anisotropy both flow anisotropy and source shape contribute to oscillations, but… geometry dominates dynamics freezeout source out-of-plane extended  fast freeze-out timescale !

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 19 Azimuthal HBT: hydro predictions RHIC (T 0 =340  0 =0.6 fm) Out-of-plane-extended source (but flips with hadronic afterburner) flow & geometry work together to produce HBT oscillations oscillations stable with K T Heinz & Kolb, hep-th/ (note: R O /R S puzzle persists)

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 20 Azimuthal HBT: hydro predictions “LHC” (T 0 =2.0  0 =0.1 fm) In-plane-extended source (!) HBT oscillations reflect competition between geometry, flow low K T : geometry high K T : flow sign flip RHIC (T 0 =340  0 =0.6 fm) Out-of-plane-extended source (but flips with hadronic afterburner) flow & geometry work together to produce HBT oscillations oscillations stable with K T Heinz & Kolb, hep-th/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 21 HBT( φ ) Results – 200 GeV Oscillations similar to those 130GeV 20x more statistics  explore systematics in centrality, k T much more to come… STAR PRELIMINARY

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 22 Summary Quantitative understanding of bulk dynamics crucial to extracting real physics at RHIC p-space - measurements well-reproduced by models anisotropy  system response to compression (EoS) probe via v 2 (p T,m) x-space - generally not well-reproduced anisotropy  evolution, timescale information, geometry / flow interplay Azimuthally-sensitive HBT: correlating quantum correlation with bulk correlation reconstruction of full 3D source geometry Freezeout geometry out-of-plane extended early (and fast) particle emission ! consistent with blast-wave parameterization of v 2 (p T,m), spectra, R(p T ), K-  With more detailed information, “RHIC HBT puzzle” deepens what about hadronic rescattering stage? - “must” occur, or…? does hydro reproduce  t  or not?? ~right source shape via oscillations, but misses R L (m T ) Models of bulk dynamics severely (over?)constrained

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 23 Backup slides follow

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 24 Summary Freeze-out scenario f(x,t,p) crucial to understanding RHIC physics p-space - measurements well-reproduced by models anisotropy  system response to compression probe via v 2 (p T,m) x-space - generally not well-reproduced anisotropy  evolution, timescale information Azimuthally-sensitive HBT: a unique new tool to probe crucial information from a new angle  elliptic flow data suggest x-space anisotropy  HBT R(  ) confirm out-of-plane extended source for RHIC conditions, geometry dominates dynamical effects oscillations consistent with freeze-out directly from hydro stage (???) consistent description of v 2 (p T,m) and R(  ) in blastwave parameterization challenge/feedback for “real” physical models of collision dynamics

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 25 RHIC  AGS Current experimental access only to second-order event-plane odd-order oscillations in  p are invisible cannot (unambiguously) extract tilt (which is likely tiny anyhow) cross-terms R sl 2 and R ol 2 y=0  concentrate on “purely transverse” radii R o 2, R s 2, R os 2 Strong pion flow  cannot ignore space-momentum correlations (unknown) implicit  -dependences in homogeneity lengths  geometrical inferences will be more model-dependent the source you view depends on the viewing angle

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 26 Summary of anisotropic AGS RQMD reproduces data better in “cascade” mode Exactly the opposite trend as seen in flow (p-space anisotropy) Combined measurement much more stringent test of flow dynamics!!

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 27 hydro: time evolution of anisotropies at RHIC and “LHC” Heinz & Kolb, hep-th/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 28 Blastwave Mach II - Including asymmetries R tt Flow –Space-momentum correlations – = 0.6 (average flow rapidity) – Assymetry (periph) :  a = 0.05 Temperature – T = 110 MeV System geometry – R = 13 fm (central events) –Assymetry (periph event) s 2 = 0.05 Time: emission duration –  = emission duration analytic description of freezeout distribution: exploding thermal source

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 29 Sensitivity to  0 within blast-wave “Reasonable” variations in radial flow magnitude (  0 )  parallel p T dependence for transverse HBT radii 00

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 30 Sensitivity to  within blast-wave R S insensitive to  R O increases with p T as  increases 

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 31 Thermal motion superimposed on radial flow Hydro-inspired “blast-wave” thermal freeze-out fits to , K, p,   R  s E.Schnedermann et al, PRC48 (1993) 2462 T th = 107 MeV  = 0.55 preliminary M. Kaneta

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 32 Previous Data:  - HBT(  AGS Au(4 AGeV)Au, b  4-8 fm 6 components to radius tensor: i, j = o,s,l 1D projections,  =45° 2D projections lines: projections of 3D Gaussian fit  outsidelong C(q) E895, PLB (2000)

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 33 Cross-term radii R ol, R os, R sl quantify “tilts” in correlation functions in q-space   fit results to correlation functions Lines: Simultaneous fit to HBT radii to extract underlying geometry

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 34 First look at centrality dependence! Hot off the presses PRELIMINARY c/o Dan Magestro

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 35 but their freezeout source is in-plane extended? stronger in-plane (elliptic) flow “tricks” us “dynamics rules over geometry” But is that too naïve? Hydro predictions for R 2 (  ) correct phase (& ~amplitude) of oscillations (size (offset) of R O, R S, R L still wrong) Heinz & Kolb hep-ph/ retracted Feb 02

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 36 Experimental indications of x-space RHIC soliddashed 0.04   0.02  a (c) 0.04  S2S   0.02  0 (c) 100   20 T (MeV) Flow boost:  b = boost direction Meaning of  a is clear  how to interpret s 2 ? hydro-inspired blast-wave model Houvinen et al (2001) soliddashed 0.04   0.02  a (c) 0.04  S2S   0.02  0 (c) 100   20 T (MeV) STAR, PRL (2001)

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 37 Ambiguity in nature of the spatial anisotroy  b = direction of the boost  s 2 > 0 means more source elements emitting in plane case 1: circular source with modulating density RMS x > RMS y RMS x < RMS y case 2: elliptical source with uniform density

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 38 Hydro-inspired model calculations (“blast wave”)  s 2  =0.033, T=100 MeV,  0   a  R=10 fm,  =2 fm/c consider results in context of blast wave model ~same parameters describe R(  ) and v 2 (p T,m) both elliptic flow and aniostropic geometry contribute to oscillations, but… geometry rules over dynamics R(  ) measurement removes ambiguity over nature of spatial anisotropy early version of data but message the same case 1 case 2

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 39 To do Get “not-preliminary” plot of experimental spectra versus hydro Get Heinz/Kolb plot of epsilon and v2 versus time (from last paper)

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 40 Spatial anisotropy calculation Shuryak/Teaney/Lauret define which of course is just the opposite to what, e.g. Heinz/Kolb call  : I think Raimond in some paper called the Heinz/Kolb parameter s 2 also (in analogy to v 2 ). Great…. Better still, in the BlastWave, another s2 (in Lisa-B) is related to Ry/Rx via: Anyway, if we say s 2,BW = 0.04, this corresponds to  = (5.5% extended) which gives s 2,STL = -0.05, or  HK = This is in the range of the H/K hydro calculation, but seems a huge number for STL ?

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 41 Symmetries of the emission function I. Mirror reflection symmetry w.r.t. reactionplane (for spherical nuclei):  with II. Point reflection symmetry w.r.t. collision center (equal nuclei):  with

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 42 Fourier expansion of spatial correlation tensor S  S n = 0 for all terms containing even powers of y C n = 0 for all terms containing odd powers of y For terms with even powers of t, S n, C n are odd (even) functions of Y for odd (even) n For terms with odd powers of t, it’s the other way around The odd functions vanish at Y=0 I  II 

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 43 Spatial correlation Y=0: Symmetry Implications

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 44 Fourier expansion of HBT Y=0 Insert symmetry constraints of spatial correlation tensor into Wiedemann relations and combine with explicit  -dependence: Note: These most general forms of the Fourier expansions for the HBT radii are preserved when averaging the correlation function over a finite, symmetric window around Y=0.

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 45

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 46 s 2 dependence dominates HBT signal error contour from elliptic flow data color:  2 levels from HBT data STAR preliminary  s 2  =0.033, T=100 MeV,  0   a  R=10 fm,  =2 fm/c

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 47 Joint view of  freezeout: HBT & spectra spectra (  ) HBT common model/parameterset describes different aspects of f(x,p) Increasing T has similar effect on a spectrum as increasing  But it has opposite effect on R(p T )  opposite parameter correlations in the two analyses  tighter constraint on parameters caviat: not exactly same model used here (different flow profiles) STAR preliminary

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 48 Typical 1-  Error contours for BP fits Primary correlation is the familiar correlation between and radii Large acceptance  no strong correlations between radii Cross-term uncorrelated with any other parameter AGS (QM99)

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 49 BP analysis with 1 z bin from -75,75 mixing those events generates artifact: too many large q L pairs in denominator bad normalization, esp for transverse radii Event mixing: z vertex issue

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 50 2D contour plot of the pair emission angle CF….

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 51 Out-of-plane elliptical shape indicated in blast wave using (approximate) values of s 2 and  a from elliptical flow case 1 case 2 opposite R(  ) oscillations would lead to opposite conclusion

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 52 Effect of dilute stage (RQMD) on v2 SPS and RHIC: Teaney, Lauret, & Shuryak, nucl-th/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 53 Hydrodynamics: good description of radial and elliptical flow at RHIC data: STAR, PHENIX, QM01 model: P. Kolb, U. Heinz RHIC; p t dependence quantitatively described by Hydro Charged particles good agreement with hydrodynamic calculation

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 54 Hydrodynamics: problems describing HBT out side long K T dependence approximately reproduced  correct amount of collective flow R s too small, R o & R l too big  source is geometrically too small and lives too long in model Right dynamic effect / wrong space-time evolution?  the “RHIC HBT Puzzle” generic hydro

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 55 “Realistic” afterburner does not help… pure hydro hydro + uRQMD STAR data Currently, no “physical” model reproduces explosive space-time scenario indicated v 2, HBT R O /R S

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 56 Now what? No dynamical model adequately describes freeze-out distribution Seriously threatens hope of understanding pre-freeze-out dynamics Raises several doubts –is the data “consistent with itself” ? (can any scenario describe it?) –analysis tools understood?  Attempt to use data itself to parameterize freeze-out distribution Identify dominant characteristics Examine interplay between observables “finger physics”: what (essentially) dominates observations? Isolate features generating discrepancy with “real” physics models

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 57 Characterizing the freezeout: An analogous situation

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 58 Probing f(x,p) from different angles Transverse spectra: number distribution in m T Elliptic flow: anisotropy as function of m T HBT: homogeneity lengths vs m T,  p

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 59 m T distribution from Hydrodynamics-inspired model E.Schnedermann et al, PRC48 (1993) 2462 R  s Infinitely long solid cylinder  b = direction of flow boost (=  s here) 2-parameter (T,  ) fit to m T distribution

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 60  2 contour maps for 95.5%CL T th [GeV]  s [c] -- K-K- p T th [GeV]  s [c] T th [GeV]  s [c] T th = MeV =0.52 ±0.06[c] tanh -1 ( ) = 0.6 = 0.8  s Fits to STAR spectra;  r =  s (r/R) 0.5 -- K-K- p 1/m T dN/dm T (a.u.) m T - m [GeV/c 2 ] thanks to M. Kaneta preliminary STAR preliminary

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 61 Implications for HBT: radii vs p T Assuming , T obtained from spectra fits  strong x-p correlations, affecting R O, R S differently p T =0.2 p T =0.4 y (fm) x (fm) calculations using Schnedermann model with parameters from spectra fits

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 62 Implications for  HBT: radii vs p T STAR data model: R=13.5 fm,  =1.5 fm/c T=0.11 GeV,  0  = 0.6 Magnitude of flow and temperature from spectra can account for observed drop in HBT radii via x-p correlations, and R o <R s …but emission duration must be small p T =0.2 p T =0.4 y (fm) x (fm) Four parameters affect HBT radii

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 63 Space-time asymmetry from K-  correlations Evidence of a space – time asymmetry –   -  K ~ 4fm/c ± 2 fm/c, static sphere –Consistent with “default” blast wave calculation   p T  = 0.12 GeV/c K  p T  = 0.42 GeV/c

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 64 Non-central collisions: coordinate- and momentum-space anisotropies Equal energy density lines P. Kolb, J. Sollfrank, and U. Heinz

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 65 More detail: identified particle elliptic flow soliddashed 0.04   0.02  a (c) 0.04  S2S   0.02  0 (c) 100   20 T (MeV) STAR, in press PRL (2001) Flow boost:  b = boost direction Meaning of  a is clear  how to interpret s 2 ? hydro-inspired blast-wave model Houvinen et al (2001)

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 66 Ambiguity in nature of the spatial anisotroy  b = direction of the boost  s 2 > 0 means more source elements emitting in plane case 1: circular source with modulating density RMS x > RMS y RMS x < RMS y case 2: elliptical source with uniform density

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 67 case 1 using (approximate) values of s 2 and  a from elliptical flow case 2 opposite R(  ) oscillations would lead to opposite conclusion Out-of-plane elliptical shape indicated

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 68 A consistent picture

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 69 Summary Combined data-driven analysis of freeze-out distribution Single parameterization simultaneously describes spectra elliptic flow HBT K-  correlations most likely cause of discrepancy is extremely rapid emission timescale suggested by data - more work needed! Spectra & HBT R(pT) Very strong radial flow field superimposed on thermal motion v2(pT,m) & HBT R  Very strong anisotropic radial flow field superimposed on thermal motion, and geometric anisotropy Dominant freezeout characteristics extracted STAR low-pT message constraints to models rapid freezeout timescale and (?) rapid evolution timescale

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 70 Previous Data:  - HBT(  AGS Au(4 AGeV)Au, b  4-8 fm 6 components to radius tensor: i, j = o,s,l 1D projections,  =45° 2D projections lines: projections of 3D Gaussian fit  outsidelong C(q) E895, PLB (2000)

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 71 Cross-term radii R ol, R os, R sl quantify “tilts” in correlation functions   fit results to correlation functions Lines: Simultaneous fit to HBT radii to extract underlying geometry Mike Lisa: thicker lines!!! bigger symbols!! have 2 GeV handy Mike Lisa: thicker lines!!! bigger symbols!! have 2 GeV handy

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 72 x out x side K Meaning of R o 2 (  ) and R s 2 (  ) are clear What about R os 2 (  )  p (°) R 2 (fm 2 ) outsidelong ol os sl E895 Collab., PLB (2000) R os 2 (  ) quantifies correlation between x out and x side No correlation (tilt) b/t between x out and x side at  p =0° (or 90°) K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side  p = 0°  p ~45° Strong (positive) correlation when  p =45° Phase of R os 2 (  ) oscillation reveals orientation of extended source

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 73

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 74

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 75

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 76 Hydro predictions for R 2 (  ) correct phase of oscillations ~ correct amplitude of oscillations (size (offset) of R O, R S, R L still inconsistent with data) Heinz & Kolb hep-ph/

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 77

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 78 x out x side K Meaning of R o 2 (  ) and R s 2 (  ) are clear What about R os 2 (  )  p (°) R 2 (fm 2 ) outsidelong ol os sl E895 Collab., PLB (2000) R os 2 (  ) quantifies correlation between x out and x side No correlation (tilt) b/t between x out and x side at  p =0° (or 90°) K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side K x out x side  p = 0°  p ~45° Strong (positive) correlation when  p =45° Phase of R os 2 (  ) oscillation reveals orientation of extended source

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 79 Just for fun, one for the road… Let’s go to “high” p T … if different, freeze-out is earlier or later? so s 2 (~ellipticity) should be lower or higher? and  a (diff. between flow out-of-plane and in-plane) should be higher or lower? OK, to look at higher p T, what happens with higher s 2 and lower  a ? so s 2 (~ellipticity) should be lower or higher? and  a (diff. between flow out-of-plane and in-plane) should be higher or lower? if different, freeze-out is earlier or later?

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 80 v 2 (p T ) for “early time” parameters “saturation” of high pT mass - dependence essentially gone

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 81 More detail: identified particle elliptic flow soliddashed 0.04   0.02  a (c) 0.04  S2S   0.02  0 (c) 100   20 T (MeV) STAR, in press PRL (2001) Flow boost:  b = boost direction Meaning of  a is clear  how to interpret s 2 ? hydro-inspired blast-wave model Houvinen et al (2001)

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 82 Ambiguity in nature of the spatial anisotroy  b = direction of the boost  s 2 > 0 means more source elements emitting in plane case 1: circular source with modulating density RMS x > RMS y RMS x < RMS y case 2: elliptical source with uniform density

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 83 Out-of-plane elliptical shape indicated case 1 using (approximate) values of s 2 and  a from elliptical flow case 2 opposite R(  ) oscillations would lead to opposite conclusion STAR preliminary

STAR HBT oct 2002Mike Lisa - XXXII ISMD - Alushta, Ukraine 84 Summary (cont’) HBT radii grow with collision centrality R(mult) evidence of strong space-momentum correlations R(m T ) non-central collisions spatially extended out-of-plane R(  ) The spoiler - expected increase in radii not observed presently no dynamical model reproduces data Combined data-driven analysis of freeze-out distribution Single parameterization simultaneously describes spectra elliptic flow HBT K-  correlations most likely cause of discrepancy is extremely rapid emission timescale suggested by data - more work needed!