Peter Steinberg Bulk Dynamics in Heavy Ion Collisions Peter Steinberg Brookhaven National Laboratory INPC2004 June 27-July 2, 2004 Göteborg, Sweden.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

PID v2 and v4 from Au+Au Collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV at RHIC

Advertisements

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.

Elliptic flow of thermal photons in Au+Au collisions at 200GeV QNP2009 Beijing, Sep , 2009 F.M. Liu Central China Normal University, China T. Hirano.

TJH: ISMD 2005, 8/9-15 Kromeriz, Czech Republic TJH: 1 Experimental Results at RHIC T. Hallman Brookhaven National Laboratory ISMD Kromeriz, Czech Republic.

Physics Results of the NA49 exp. on Nucleus – Nucleus Collisions at SPS Energies P. Christakoglou, A. Petridis, M. Vassiliou Athens University HEP2006,

Peter SteinbergBNL/RIKEN Flow Workshop Landau Hydrodynamics & RHIC Phenomenology Peter Steinberg Brookhaven National Laboratory Workshop on Collective.

Julia VelkovskaMoriond QCD, March 27, 2015 Geometry and Collective Behavior in Small Systems from PHENIX Julia Velkovska for the PHENIX Collaboration Moriond.

ICPAQGP, Kolkata, February 2-6, 2015 Itzhak Tserruya PHENIX highlights.

Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions: Recent Results from RHIC David Hardtke LBNL.

DNP03, Tucson, Oct 29, Kai Schweda Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for the STAR collaboration Hadron Yields, Hadrochemistry, and Hadronization.

Peter SteinbergISMD2003 Experimental Status of Parton Saturation at RHIC Peter Steinberg Brookhaven National Laboratory ISMD2003, Krakow, Poland 5-11 September.

QM08 J. Schukraft 1 What else can one do with ? pp at LHC: plenty of everything..  Lots of energy: 14 TeV  Lots of time: several months/year Lots.

5-12 April 2008 Winter Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics STAR Particle production at RHIC Aneta Iordanova for the STAR collaboration.

1 A simple model to study the centrality dependence of observables from SPS to RHIC energies inspired by the first CuCu results to extract the physics.

XXXIII International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics, September 7, 2003 Kraków, Poland Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez STAR Collaboration Review.

Helen Caines Yale University SQM – L.A.– March 2006 Using strange hadron yields as probes of dense matter. Outline Can we use thermal models to describe.

WWND, San Diego1 Scaling Characteristics of Azimuthal Anisotropy at RHIC Michael Issah SUNY Stony Brook for the PHENIX Collaboration.

Masashi Kaneta, LBNL Masashi Kaneta for the STAR collaboration Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. First results from STAR experiment at RHIC - Soft hadron.

QM2006 Shanghai, China 1 High-p T Identified Hadron Production in Au+Au and Cu+Cu Collisions at RHIC-PHENIX Masahiro Konno (Univ. of Tsukuba) for the PHENIX.

Collective Flow in Heavy-Ion Collisions Kirill Filimonov (LBNL)

Spectra Physics at RHIC : Highlights from 200 GeV data Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez ISMD ‘02, Alushta, Ukraine Sep 9, 2002.

Perfect Fluid: flow measurements are described by ideal hydro Problem: all fluids have some viscosity -- can we measure it? I. Radial flow fluctuations:

QM’05 Budapest, HungaryHiroshi Masui (Univ. of Tsukuba) 1 Anisotropic Flow in  s NN = 200 GeV Cu+Cu and Au+Au collisions at RHIC - PHENIX Hiroshi Masui.

1 Nov. 15 QM2006 Shanghai J.H. Lee (BNL) Nuclear Induced Particle Suppression at Large-x F at RHIC J.H. Lee Physics Department Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Hard vs. Soft Physics at RHIC - Insights from PHENIX l Why hard vs. soft? l Soft physics: thermal, flow effects l Hard processes at RHIC l Conclusion Barbara.

Workshop for Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy 2011

20 Nov 2006, Quark Matter, Shanghai, ChinaShinIchi Esumi, Univ. of Tsukuba1 Rapporteur 3 Bulk Properties and Collective Phenomena ShinIchi Esumi Univ.

Anisotropic Flow Raimond Snellings. Raimond Snellings; Trento What have we learned from elliptic flow so far? According to: –U. Heinz: Resulting.

Peter Steinberg 20 th Winter Workshop, Jamaica 2004 Landau on the Beach: Hydrodynamics & RHIC Phenomenology Peter Steinberg Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Roy A. Lacey (SUNY Stony Brook ) C ompressed B aryonic at the AGS: A Review !! C ompressed B aryonic M atter at the AGS: A Review !!

1 Jeffery T. Mitchell – Quark Matter /17/12 The RHIC Beam Energy Scan Program: Results from the PHENIX Experiment Jeffery T. Mitchell Brookhaven.

Helen Caines Yale University Soft Physics at the LHC - Catania - Sept Questions for the LHC resulting from RHIC Strangeness Outline Chemistry Yields.

Hadron Collider Physics 2012, 12/Nov/2012, KyotoShinIchi Esumi, Univ. of Tsukuba1 Heavy Ion results from RHIC-BNL ShinIchi Esumi Univ. of Tsukuba Contents.

Phantom Jets: the  puzzle and v 2 without hydrodynamics Rudolph C. Hwa University of Oregon Early Time Dynamics in Heavy Ion Collisions Montreal, July.

Presentation for NFR - October 19, Trine S.Tveter Recent results from RHIC Systems studied so far at RHIC: - s NN 1/2 = 

Masashi Kaneta, First joint Meeting of the Nuclear Physics Divisions of APS and JPS 1 / Masashi Kaneta LBNL

Ralf Averbeck Stony Brook University Hot Quarks 2004 Taos, New Mexico, July 19-24, 2004 for the Collaboration Open Heavy Flavor Measurements with PHENIX.

HIRSCHEGG, January , 2005 Nu Xu //Talk/2005/01Hirschegg05// 1 / 24 Search for Partonic EoS in High-Energy Collisions Nu Xu Lawrence Berkeley National.

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.

Heavy-Ion Physics - Hydrodynamic Approach Introduction Hydrodynamic aspect Observables explained Recombination model Summary 전남대 이강석 HIM

Structure and Fine Structure seen in e + e -, pp, pA and AA Multiparticle Production Wit Busza MIT BNL workshop, May 2004.

Olena Linnyk Charmonium in heavy ion collisions 16 July 2007.

Peter Steinberg CIPANP 2003 Dynamics of Soft Particle Production in Heavy Ion Collisions Peter Steinberg Brookhaven National Laboratory Visiting Fulbright.

21 st June 2007 RHIC & AGS Users’ Meeting Recent RHIC Results on Bulk Properties Richard Hollis.

Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook, ISMD, Kromĕříž, Roy A. Lacey What do we learn from Correlation measurements at RHIC.

Strange Probes of QCD Matter Huan Zhong Huang Department of Physics and Astronomy University of California Los Angeles, CA Oct 6-10, 2008; SQM2008.

21 st WWND, W. Holzmann Wolf Gerrit Holzmann (Nuclear Chemistry, SUNY Stony Brook) for the Collaboration Tomographic Studies of the sQGP at RHIC: the next.

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.

Chester - Sept Russell Betts 1 The Experimental Challenge Adapting the Techniques of Particle Physics to Measuring 100  more Particles per.

Systematic Study of Elliptic Flow at RHIC Maya SHIMOMURA University of Tsukuba ATHIC 2008 University of Tsukuba, Japan October 13-15, 2008.

Entropy at high E and μ B Peter Steinberg Brookhaven National Laboratory “Critical Point & Onset of Deconfinement” (deco) Workshop Galileo Galilei Institute,

Bulk properties at RHIC Olga Barannikova (Purdue University) Motivation Freeze-out properties at RHIC STAR perspective STAR  PHENIX, PHOBOS Time-span.

Japanese Physics Society meeting, Hokkaido Univ. 23/Sep/2007, JPS meeting, Sapporo, JapanShinIchi Esumi, Inst. of Physics, Univ. of Tsukuba1 Collective.

3-D Hydro: present and future Tetsufumi Hirano Columbia University Second RHIC II Science BNL, Probes of EOS.

Peter SteinbergISMD2003 Experimental Status of Parton Saturation at RHIC Peter Steinberg Brookhaven National Laboratory Forward RHIC October.

Helen Caines Yale University Strasbourg - May 2006 Strangeness and entropy.

Hadron Spectra and Yields Experimental Overview Julia Velkovska INT/RHIC Winter Workshop, Dec 13-15, 2002.

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 1 Arkadij Taranenko XVIII Baldin ISHEPP September 25-30, JINR Dubna Nuclear Chemistry Group SUNY Stony Brook, USA Scaling Properties.

Soft physics in PbPb at the LHC Hadron Collider Physics 2011 P. Kuijer ALICECMSATLAS Necessarily incomplete.

What do the scaling characteristics of elliptic flow reveal about the properties of the matter at RHIC ? Michael Issah Stony Brook University for the PHENIX.

1 A simple model to study the centrality dependence of observables from SPS to RHIC energies inspired by the first CuCu results later checked against EPOS.

Akihiko Monnai Department of Physics, The University of Tokyo Collaborator: Tetsufumi Hirano V iscous Hydrodynamic Evolution with Non-Boost Invariant Flow.

Duke University 野中千穂 Hadron production in heavy ion collision: Fragmentation and recombination in Collaboration with R. J. Fries (Duke), B. Muller (Duke),

HBT results from a rescattering model Tom Humanic Ohio State University WPCF 2005 August 17, 2005.

Review of ALICE Experiments

PHENIX Measurements of Azimuthal Anisotropy at RHIC

Hydro + Cascade Model at RHIC

STAR and RHIC; past, present and future.

Outline First of all, there’s too much data!! BRAHMS PHOBOS PHENIX

What have we learned from Anisotropic Flow at RHIC ?

Presentation transcript:

Peter Steinberg Bulk Dynamics in Heavy Ion Collisions Peter Steinberg Brookhaven National Laboratory INPC2004 June 27-July 2, 2004 Göteborg, Sweden

Peter Steinberg Strongly-Interacting Matter On the lattice, only reach 75-80% of Stefan-Boltzmann limit In context of N=4 SUSY QCD this is the signature of a strongly-interacting plasma (Klebanov et al) Shift of paradigm: QCD does not predict weakly interacting QGP for accessible T Have we discovered strongly-interacting matter in A+A collisions? (RBRC Workshop May 14-15, 2004 & RHIC Whitepapers)

Peter Steinberg The Bulk of Particles: dN/d  Ñ“Bulk Dynamics” is the comprehensive study of particle production in A+A Energy Centrality Rapidity dN/d    19.6 GeV 130 GeV200 GeV Most Central  PHOBOS Participant Spectator

Peter Steinberg The Bulk of Particles: dN/dp T STAR PHOBOS

Peter Steinberg The Dynamical Model Approach Parton distributions Nuclear Geometry Nuclear shadowing Parton production & reinteraction Chemical Freezeout & Quark Recombination Jet Fragmentation Functions Hadron Rescattering Thermal Freezeout & Hadron decays Independent stages: Bulk physics integrates time history 0 fm/c 2 fm/c 7 fm/c >7 fm/c

Peter Steinberg Dynamical Models vs. Data HIJING Hard + Soft Hadron Transport RHIC Data pp Data Particle Density near y=0 Large variation in predictions Compilation by V. Topor-Pop

Peter Steinberg The Big Surprise Bulk observables are “simple” (but not “trivial”) …just not necessarily at  =0!

Peter Steinberg Participant Scaling N ch ~ N part /2  Long-range rapidity correlations R. Nouicer, QM2004 PHOBOS PRL91 (2003)

Peter Steinberg “Limiting Fragmentation” in A+A Yield depends on  ’  -y beam ~ln(x F ) Logarithmic increase at  =0  centrality-dependent “universal curve” peripheral central PHOBOS PRL91 (2003)

Peter Steinberg Difference between p+p vs. A+A In a head-on p+p collision… …half of energy emerges as “leading particles” flat in x F In a typical A+A collision… …“leading particles” can be struck again! May make sense to consider A+A as having most of available energy for particle production Batista & Covolan (1998) NA49

Peter Steinberg Universality of Total Multiplicity A+A per participant pair ~  s/2 ~  s A real surprise at RHIC – not predicted by SPS extrapolations LEP 200 GeV

Peter Steinberg Essential Features of A+A 1.N part scaling Factorization of Energy & Geometry 2.Universal multiplicity / N part /2 Connections to e+e- & p+p 3.“Limiting fragmentation” How can we understand this in a simple way? Dynamical models have many independent stages CGC captures several essential physics features (L. McLerran, Monday)

Peter Steinberg Hydrodynamic Evolution Strongly-interacting 6 Li released from an asymmetric trap O’Hara, et al, Science (2002) A new canonical image for heavy-ion physics Hydro useful for strongly interacting matter: buildup of pressure gradients Does it work for A+A?…

Peter Steinberg Longitudinal  Transverse z y x y pzpz pTpT Longitudinal dynamics provide initial conditions for transverse dynamics

Peter Steinberg Longitudinal Dynamics 1.Early thermalization 2.Blackbody EOS 3.Multiplicity formula: 4.N part scaling 5.Gaussian dN/dy z y Landau Extreme physics scenario: Assume matter stops briefly and explodes longitudinally Landau, Milekhin, Khalatnikov, Cooper/Frye, Carruthers, Andersson, Shuryak, Prakash, Venugopalan…

Peter Steinberg Universal Multiplicity Formula N ch =2.2s 1/4 PHOBOS nucl-ex/

Peter Steinberg dN/dy: Longitudinal Dynamics M. Murray, BRAHMS No extended “boost invariant” plateau. dN/dy is consequence of hydrodynamic expansion of Lorentz contracted early stage = DYNAMICS

Peter Steinberg Limiting Fragmentation y-y T Naïve use of Landau expressions give approximate scaling in y’ P. Steinberg, WWND2004

Peter Steinberg Transverse Dynamics 1.Assume boost-invariance 2.dN/dy is initial condition 3.Non-trivial EOS Ñ1 st order, 2 nd order… 4.Pressure gradients ÑRadial & elliptic flow 5.Cooper-Frye Freezeout Heinz, Kolb, Shuryak, Teaney, Lauret, Huovinen,Ollitrault, et al… Heinz, Kolb

Peter Steinberg Radial Flow A clear mass effect on top of “thermal” spectrum Kolb & Rapp 20% normalization at 2 GeV Subm. to PRL nucl-ex/ Au+Au 200 GeV Kolb/Rapp

Peter Steinberg Elliptic Flow vs. Geometry Hydrodynamic limit STAR PHOBOS Hydrodynamic limit STAR PHOBOS Compilation and Figure from M. Kaneta Observation of “elliptic flow” Reasonable agreement with hydro in more central events

Peter Steinberg p T Dependence “fine structure” (mass dependence) sensitive to EOS  Qualitatively described by hydro (and hydro-inspired) fits STAR

Peter Steinberg Pseudorapidity Dependence “Limiting fragmentation” works for v 2 (  ) (almost too well!) Further indication of no boost-invariant plateau Challenge even for 3D hydro calculations, even if “rule” looks simple! T. Hirano - CGC+Hydro T. Hirano, Nov ‘03 PHOBOS nucl-ex/ , 62,130,200 GeV PHOBOS 130 GeV

Peter Steinberg Hydro approach appears to be warranted by a wide range of data (but no single model gets everything right!) Joining longitudinal & tranverse stages is not well-defined at present (fit parameter in boost-invariant codes) Serious conceptual issues regarding relevance of hydro to small systems…

Peter Steinberg More similarities: AA & e+e- Similar “longitudinal dynamics”? Similar “energy density”?

Peter Steinberg Limiting Fragmentation DELPHI PLB 459 (1999) p+p e+e-e+e- Generic feature of energy dependence of multiparticle production

Peter Steinberg Similar Freezeout Properties e+e-e+e- A+A From Braun-Munzinger, Stachel, Redlich (2003) Becattini (1995) Relative particle yields described using thermal-statistical models in both e+e- and A+A

Peter Steinberg Radial Expansion in p+p? R. Witt, STAR Collaboration Is p+p qualitatively or just quantitatively different than A+A?

Peter Steinberg Radial Expansion in p+p? HBT radii have similar relative momentum dependence: Similar “expansion dynamics”? R out / R out (pp) R side / R side (pp) R long / R long (pp) STAR T. Gutierrez, QM04

Peter Steinberg Soft Physics = Difficult Physics? Dynamical models have many independent stages. Data seems to suggest global constraints.

Peter Steinberg Incoming nuclei: N part, Lorentz contraction Rapid thermalization: Entropy production 1D expansion stage: Rapidity distributions 3D expansion stage: Elliptic & radial flow Freezeout into hadrons: Statistical phenomenology t = 0.0 fm/c t = 0.1 fm/c t < 0.6 fm/c t = 0.6 fm/c t = 6-10 fm/c Soft Physics = Hydrodynamics? System may be strongly interacting throughout (conserving entropy for the full evolution!)

Peter Steinberg Paths to Progress ÑHow do we understand differences and similarities between A+A and p+p, e+e-? How does hydro connect with Color Glass Condensate? ÑHow could the system thermalize so rapidly? Which degrees of freedom thermalize and when? Partons, hadrons, or something else (G. Brown)? ÑHow can we integrate the longitudinal and transverse physics? For now, study systematics of initial state, EOS, final state Ultimately, need 3D hydrodynamic calculations starting at the earliest times  minimize # of parameters! ÑData over a broad rapidity range with PID is essential Soft physics is global physics: y = 0 may not be special Baryon dynamics is a crucial issue to resolve

Peter Steinberg Extra Slides

Peter Steinberg Available Energy BRAHMS data suggests only 75% “available energy” Contradiction? Possibly. SLD: Leading K ± in ss jets ~1.5 units from end of rapidity range Do we consider this to NOT be part of the jet?

Peter Steinberg Energy Density Energy density related to energy created near  =0

Peter Steinberg Total Multiplicity vs. Models

Peter Steinberg Centrality Dependence 200/ /130 Changes in one rapidity region are correlated with particles in distant regions Evolution of particle density with centrality is energy-independent

Peter Steinberg Importance of Viscosity Viscous effects do not substantially modify ideal hydro Teaney

Peter Steinberg Marek’s Kink Are pions the only carriers of entropy? PHOBOS “approach”: Trade in p+p for e+e- Baryon density affects global particle production P. Steinberg, WW04

Peter Steinberg RHIC Experiments (to scale) Two BIG Spectrometers: 100’s-1000’s particles event Particle ID, photons & leptons Two small detectors: Forward particles, Particle multiplicity PHENIX STAR BRAHMS PHOBOS

Peter Steinberg dN/dy Gaussians & Widths E GeV Au+Au BRAHMS prel. NA GeV Au+Au 4.1 GeV Au+Au 8.8 GeV Pb+Pb 17.3 GeV Pb+Pb 200 GeV Au+Au In central events, pion rapidity distributions are Gaussian! No boost invariance in any region of phase space

Peter Steinberg Energy & Geometry “Factorize” 62 GeV 200 GeV

Peter Steinberg What Controls v 2 ? Particle density appears to be a control variable Is there really a “hydro limit”? NA49 Phys.Rev. C68 (2003)