In what way is a QGP interacting?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mass, Quark-number, Energy Dependence of v 2 and v 4 in Relativistic Nucleus- Nucleus Collisions Yan Lu University of Science and Technology of China Many.
Advertisements

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 1 Arkadij Taranenko Quark Matter 2006 November 13-20, Shanghai, China Nuclear Chemistry Group SUNY Stony Brook, USA PHENIX Studies.
Supported by DOE 11/22/2011 QGP viscosity at RHIC and LHC energies 1 Huichao Song 宋慧超 Seminar at the Interdisciplinary Center for Theoretical Study, USTC.
1 Jet Structure of Baryons and Mesons in Nuclear Collisions l Why jets in nuclear collisions? l Initial state l What happens in the nuclear medium? l.
TJH: ISMD 2005, 8/9-15 Kromeriz, Czech Republic TJH: 1 Experimental Results at RHIC T. Hallman Brookhaven National Laboratory ISMD Kromeriz, Czech Republic.
1Erice 2012, Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University.
Peter Christiansen (Lund University) for the ALICE Collaboration.
The speed of sound in a magnetized hot Quark-Gluon-Plasma Based on: Neda Sadooghi Department of Physics Sharif University of Technology Tehran-Iran.
Julia VelkovskaMoriond QCD, March 27, 2015 Geometry and Collective Behavior in Small Systems from PHENIX Julia Velkovska for the PHENIX Collaboration Moriond.
Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions: Recent Results from RHIC David Hardtke LBNL.
1 Questions about sQGP Carlos Arguello Columbia University 24 th Winter Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics April 10 th 2008.
Forward-Backward Correlations in Heavy Ion Collisions Aaron Swindell, Morehouse College REU Cyclotron 2006, Texas A&M University Advisor: Dr. Che-Ming.
Centrality-dependent pt spectra of Direct photons at RHIC F.M. Liu 刘复明 Central China Normal University, China T. Hirano University of Tokyo, Japan K.Werner.
Photo-emission in hQCD and LHC Sang-Jin Sin (Hanyang 2010/08/11.
Strange and Charm Probes of Hadronization of Bulk Matter at RHIC International Symposium on Multi-Particle Dynamics Aug 9-15, 2005 Huan Zhong Huang University.
Nonequilibrium Dynamics in Astrophysics and Material Science YITP, Kyoto, Japan, Oct. 31-Nov. 3, 2011 Tetsufumi Hirano Sophia Univ./the Univ. of Tokyo.
Uncertainties in jet event generators due to hadronizaton scheme, Other issues with energy loss on E-by-E hydro, and the extraction of transport coefficients.
Identified Particle Ratios at large p T in Au+Au collisions at  s NN = 200 GeV Matthew A. C. Lamont for the STAR Collaboration - Talk Outline - Physics.
Precision Probes for Hot QCD Matter Rainer Fries Texas A&M University & RIKEN BNL QCD Workshop, Washington DC December 15, 2006.
November 18, Shanghai Anomalous Viscosity of an Expanding Quark-Gluon Plasma Masayuki ASAKAWA Department of Physics, Osaka University S. A.
Cambridge Workshop July 18, 2002 Rick Field - Florida/CDFPage 1 The Sources of b-Quarks at the Tevatron  Important to have good leading (or leading-log)
Heavy Ion Meeting, Yonsei University Seoul, Dec. 10, 2011 T.H., P.Huovinen, K.Murase, Y.Nara (in preparation)
1 AdS/CFT Calculations of Parton Energy Loss Jorge Casalderrey-Solana Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. In collaboration with D. Teaney.
High Pt physics with TOF ALICE B.V.Zagreev ITEP
Hadron Collider Physics 2012, 12/Nov/2012, KyotoShinIchi Esumi, Univ. of Tsukuba1 Heavy Ion results from RHIC-BNL ShinIchi Esumi Univ. of Tsukuba Contents.
Does HBT interferometry probe thermalization? Clément Gombeaud, Tuomas Lappi and J-Y Ollitrault IPhT Saclay WPCF 2009, CERN, October 16, 2009.
Phantom Jets: the  puzzle and v 2 without hydrodynamics Rudolph C. Hwa University of Oregon Early Time Dynamics in Heavy Ion Collisions Montreal, July.
Physics of Dense Matter in Heavy-ion Collisions at J-PARC Masakiyo Kitazawa J-PARC 研究会、 2015/8/5 、 J-PARC.
QuarkNet 2006 Lets go smash some Atoms! Peripheral Collision:Central Collision Head-On Collision: Largest # of Nucleons Participate Glancing Collision:
Elliptic flow and shear viscosity in a parton cascade approach G. Ferini INFN-LNS, Catania P. Castorina, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, V. Greco.
Heavy-Ion Physics - Hydrodynamic Approach Introduction Hydrodynamic aspect Observables explained Recombination model Summary 전남대 이강석 HIM
Implications for LHC pA Run from RHIC Results CGC Glasma Initial Singularity Thermalized sQGP Hadron Gas sQGP Asymptotic.
Squaw Valley, Feb. 2013, Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University Take home message  The scaling (p T, ε, R, ∆L, etc) properties of azimuthal anisotropy.
Recent Flow Results From PHENIX Paul Stankus Oak Ridge National Lab WWND 9 April 2012.
Intermediate pT results in STAR Camelia Mironov Kent State University 2004 RHIC & AGS Annual Users' Meeting Workshop on Strangeness and Exotica at RHIC.
What have we learned from the RHIC experiments so far ? Berndt Mueller (Duke University) KPS Meeting Seoul, 22 April 2005.
Proton to Pion ratio in Jet and Bulk region in Heavy Ion collisions Misha Veldhoen (Utrecht University) For the ALICE collaboration Hard Probes 2012 Cagliari,
1 RIKEN Workshop, April , Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University Primary focus: Scaling properties of flow & Jet quenching.
Soft physics in PbPb at the LHC Hadron Collider Physics 2011 P. Kuijer ALICECMSATLAS Necessarily incomplete.
Elliptic flow from initial states of fast nuclei. A.B. Kaidalov ITEP, Moscow (based on papers with K.Boreskov and O.Kancheli) K.Boreskov and O.Kancheli)
How to extract physics from ν d y n Peter Christiansen, Lund Work done together with Eva Haslum and Evert Stenlund.
Experiment Review in small system collectivity and thermalization in pp, pA/dA/HeA collisions Shengli Huang.
Towards understanding the Quark-Gluon Plasma
SQM,UC Berkeley 27 June- 1July 2016
Peter Christiansen (Lund University) for the ALICE Collaboration
Review of ALICE Experiments
PHENIX Measurements of Azimuthal Anisotropy at RHIC
Future prospects for NA61 heavy ions: rare observables
Monika Sharma Wayne State University for the STAR Collaboration
Yukinao Akamatsu 赤松 幸尚 (Univ. of Tokyo)
Is Strangeness production different in the Bulk and in Jets ?
Strangeness Production in Heavy-Ion Collisions at STAR
ATLAS vn results vn from event plane method
Workshop on the physics of HL-LHC, and perspectives at HE-LHC
STAR and RHIC; past, present and future.
Heavy-Flavour Physics in Heavy-Ion Collisions
Experimental Studies of Quark Gluon Plasma at RHIC
Edgar Dominguez Rosas Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares
Tatsuya Chujo University of Tsukuba (for the PHENIX Collaboration)
Panos Christakoglou1 for the ALICE Collaboration 1Nikhef
Current status of Thermalization from available STAR results
Stony Brook University
QGP in small colliding systems?
Fragmentation or Recombination at High pT?
One PeV Collisions Very successful Heavy Ion run in 2015, with all new detectors in operation 16 GB/s readout/ 6GB/s on disk after HLT compression.
Multiplicity Dependence of Charged Particle, φ Meson and Multi-strange Particle Production in p+p Collisions at
+ several close collaborators and master students
Introduction of Heavy Ion Physics at RHIC
Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica, Bari (Italy)
b-Quark Production at the Tevatron
Presentation transcript:

In what way is a QGP interacting? Peter Christiansen Lund University What interactions are needed to reproduce QGP-like effects in small systems and how are these interactions related? Here concretely about the relation between flow and jet quenching

https://kraftly.com/product/thoughts-in-progress-a5-notebook-1461826391siv

First quote: the high level question “The theoretical picture of collective effects in heavy ion collisions is vastly different from the picture known from proton–proton (pp). Due to the very different geometry of the two system types, interactions in the final state of the collision become dominant in heavy ion collisions, while nearly absent in pp collisions.” (C. Bierlich, arxiv:1901.07447) One thing we CLASH about!

How to understand the ridge variation across systems? pp p-Pb Pb-Pb The ridge slowly emerges from final state interactions Ridge disappears in very small systems and is not fully formed in small systems Vs The ridge is hidden because it scales differently from mini-jet correlations Minijet correlations scales as ~1/Multiplicity (~1/NMPI) Flow correlations are independent of Multiplicity

Second quote: the low level question “If collectivity in small systems is due to final state interactions, it should be possible to also measure its effect on jets.” (C. Bierlich, arxiv:1901.07447) Common assumption, but is it really true that hydrodynamic collective behavior implies significant jet quenching or could one expect a more complex relation? Goal today: explore this

First comment: signs of other final state interactions in small systems The strangeness enhancement is a clear indication for violation of jet universality implying final state interactions So it is not a black and white question

Second comment: “friction” in the perfect liquid is as small as possible Figure taken from http://www.pumpfundamentals.com/about_fluids.htm The shear force is given as F=ηAv/d The shear vicosity-to-entropy density ratio, η/s, is a unitless quantity for characterizing fluids. For the QGP, η/s is extremely small!

Final state interactions in small systems Plenty of ideas: ”QCD” inspired: parton-parton Angantyr: Color Reconnection/Ropes, Shoving QGP: hydro, jet quenching, stat model interactions Note that even all systems are made of quarks and gluons the relevant degrees of freedom are quite different/unknown My idea: a better understanding of the fingerprints of final state interactions is key to differentiate between different paradigms Can we experimentally verify an important feature/assumption of a model?

First model: kinetic theory A model where collectivity seems to imply strong jet quenching/modifications Kinetic theory primer: (see C. Plumsberg’s slides from yesterday) Weakly coupled! Classical (QM/QFT via cross sections) Partonic (hard modes) Advantage: can be applied out of equilibrium so it can bridge CGC to hydro (thermalization/hydrodynamization) Extremely ambitious goal!

Kinetic theory: flow in small systems https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.02072 Caption: “Free-streaming particles move along the directions of their momentum vectors leading to local momentum anisotropies. In the central region where most collisions take place, there is an excess of particles moving horizontally compared to vertically moving ones. The interactions in the center region tend to isotropize the distribution function, and thus they reduce the number of horizontal movers and they add vertical movers.” Abstract: “Here, we demonstrate within the framework of transport theory that even the mildest interaction correction to a picture of free-streaming particle distributions, namely the inclusion of one perturbatively weak interaction (“one-hit dynamics”), will generically give rise to all observed linear and non-linear structures. … As a non-vanishing mean free path is indicative of non-minimal dissipation, this challenges the perfect fluid paradigm of ultra-relativistic nucleus-nucleus and hadron-nucleus collisions.”

What does this model predict? What are its signatures? Difficult because it is not quantitative (only includes collective effects) so these are my guesses! Mini jet quenching In particular when comparing near and away side jet! Must be huge effect in larger systems

What do we know? IAA Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 092301 Not any evidence that there are significant jet modifications in peripheral Pb-Pb collisions. In particular the back-to-back structure is the same!

Kinetic theory comments Large effect → obvious mechanism Small effect → obscure mechanism My conclusion: Before kinetic theory can be considered as a serious candidate for non-equilibrium physics, quantitative transparent estimates of (mini-)jet quenching (and ideally more fingerprints) must be done in a way that it can be compared to experimental data (e.g. via the new heavy-ion Rivet, see C. Bierlich’s hand on session on Monday)

Second model: Angantyr (see L. Lönnblad’s slides on Monday) Angantyr can be used to study interesting questions: There is flow via string shoving How does this affect mini jets? How small a system can shove? Study 1 MPI system! No classical geometry but there are 2 strings and radiation

dN/dη (ND s=13 TeV) PYTHIA8.240 Example: Main101 Main101 1 MPI (switch off MPIs) 15

Multiplicity (ND s=13 TeV) Main101 Main101 1 MPI 16

PYTHIA 8.240 default ND s=13 TeV 1MPI NO RIDGE PHYSICS 2 < pT,trigger < 4 GeV/c 1 < pT,assoc < 2 GeV/c  17

Angantyr (Main101) ND s=13 TeV 1MPI WITH RIDGE PHYSICS 2 < pT,trigger < 4 GeV/c 1 < pT,assoc < 2 GeV/c  NB! I do not observe any strangeness enhancement for 1 MPI events! 18

Bulk: Angantyr vs PYTHIA I get a ridge without changing the away side structure significantly 19

Jet: Angantyr vs PYTHIA Also the jet structure is not changed significantly 20

Angantyr vs kinetic theory And first then it hadronizes!

Angantyr conclusion There is a small effect BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS A SMALL EFFECT It is in some sense a prediction of Angantyr! Because the strings/ropes are only boosted by the shoving the direct correlations are minimally affected And the effect is more a jet modification rather than jet quenching effect And what is the reference for observing this if it is also present in 1 MPI events? 22

What does that imply for Hydro? Figure taken from http://www.pumpfundamentals.com/about_fluids.htm

Slight detour: Hydro “paradox” (1/2) QGP hydro = Perfect No diffusion or dissipation No entropy generation + Small viscous correction (η/s) Diffusion/dissipation ∝ η/s Strength of interaction ∝ s/η

Slight detour: Hydro “paradox” (2/2) Best guess: Thermalization ∝ s/η, so perfect liquid thermalizes as fast as possible But any hot spot will “flow” forever when η/s → 0, so hot spots do not thermalize Well known: this is what allows us to map out initial stage fluctuations Solution? local thermalization is as fast as possible Global thermalization is much slower Is this hydrodynamization?

What does this have to do with Angantyr? (weak statement) Local fast thermalized physics degrees of freedom are the strings/ropes Global thermalizaton proceeds slowly via shoving (~reversible) So it seems likely that for this type of studies, the results Angantyr and QGP models would be similar

What does this have to do with Angantyr? (strong statement) Fast local thermalization = strings/ropes Slow global thermalization = shoving What is important is that we have two different mechanisms/interactions And that while they seem to me a bit ad hoc in Angantyr, perfect hydro suggests that they are fundamental aspects of the same property of the final state matter!

Conclusions Weak (firm) Strong (suggestive) Large ridge signals does not necessarily imply significant jet quenching (even in hydro-like models) Strong (suggestive) The perfect liquid nature of the QGP suggests that Jet quenching in small systems will be a small effect in agreement with experimental observations 28

Backup

Are final state interactions absent in pp collisions? They could be there The perfect liquid nature (as small dissipation as possible) explains why they are hard to observe Angantyr picture: the strings/ropes are shoved but they hadronize the same way Figure taken from http://www.pumpfundamentals.com/about_fluids.htm

Elliptic flow and triangular flow is almost ideal Huge flow at intermediate pT: 2 times more particles in plane than out Nearly ideal fluid Significant higher order flow caused by fluctuations – also described by nearly ideal hydro + initial state

BULK: Angantyr minus PYTHIA 32