2Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Study of the properties of the QGP is a central goal at RHIC “The major discoveries in the first five years at RHIC must be followed by a broad, quantitative study of the fundamental properties of the quark gluon plasma …” The Frontiers of Nuclear Science A Long Range Plan T, c s, Characterization QGP created  crossover transition Critical End Point (CEP)? Meta-stable P-odd domains?

Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM20103 Which observable/s provide important constraints for QGP properties? initial state pre-equilibrium QGP and hydrodynamic expansion hadronization hadronic phase and freeze-out  Study how various probes (gluons, light-quarks, heavy-quarks, etc) interact with the medium (jet quenching)!  Study how matter expands/flows under its own pressure? Study Thermal photons (T) Study Charge-asymmetry (P-odd Domains)

Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM20104 QGP Temperature estimate Internal conversion used to suppress dominant background QGP radiates photons QGP and hydrodynamic expansion hadronization

5 Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Hadro-chemistry indicates a single Hadronization Temperature ~ 175 MeV, μ B ~ 29 MeV (200 GeV) HadronizationHadronization hadronization

Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM20106 Does the QGP provide new insights on P/CP invariance of the strong interaction ? Chiral chemical potential -> Axial anomaly -> parity odd meta-stable domains in which Chiral magnetic effect Kharzeev et al L or B Asymmetric Azimuthal charge distribution See S. Voloshin’s talk

Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM20107 Flow Probe Primary Control Parameters Flow Flow measurements are important probes for transport coefficients High precision double differential Measurements are pervasive arXiv:

Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM20108 Jet Probe Color charge scattering centers Range of Color Force Scattering Power Of Medium Density of Scattering centers Obtain via R AA measurements Radiative: Jet Quenching jet suppression measurements are important probes for transport coefficients

9 Remarkable scaling (& scaling violations) has been observed for both flow and R AA Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 They lend profound insights, as well as constraints for rudimentary estimates of transport coefficients!

10 Geometric Quantities for scaling A B Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010  Geometric fluctuations (including those from odd harmonics) are very important  eccentricity estimates should be constrained by multiplicity density. Phys. Rev. C 81, (R) (2010)

11 Universal Scaling of R AA Beer Lambert’s law Motivating Idea! Phys. Lett. B519, 199 (2001) Radiation energy loss ln(T) L Straightforward validation tests as a function of p T and L Dead cone effect Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010

12 Scaling of Jet Quenching Scaling also validated for different system size etc! Minimum L Requirement i.e. no corona quenching Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Phys.Rev.Lett.103:142302,2009 Phys.Rev.C80:051901,2009

13 Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Scaling of Jet Quenching - Reaction plane dependence Scaling of Jet Quenching - Reaction plane dependence Estimates From slope Simultaneous scaling of R AA and v 2 Further validation of path length scaling! Very important but no new information!

14 Is Jet Quenching Anomalous? Future B & D measurements (R AA & v 2 ) at high p T will help! Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Phys.Rev.Lett.103:142302,2009 Different Minimum L Requirement i.e. no corona quenching Quenching compatible with anisotropy  Anomalous quenching? ~3 GeV

15 Is Jet Quenching Anomalous? Future B & D measurements (R AA & v 2 ) at high p T will help! Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Quenching compatible with anisotropy  Anomalous quenching? Phys.Rev.Lett.103:142302,2009 ~3 GeV

16 Is Jet Quenching Anomalous? Precision B & D measurements (R AA & v 2 ) are now on the near horizon Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 PHENIX Silicon Vertex Detectors STAR Heavy Flavor Tracker

17 KE T & n q (n q 2 ) scaling validated for v 2 (v 4 )  Partonic flow Universal scaling of harmonic flow at RHIC Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, (2007) Meson s Baryon s v 2 scaling v 4 scaling Universal scaling

PHENIX Preliminary KE T & n q (n q 2 ) scaling validated for v 2 as a function of centrality Flow scales across centrality PHENIX Preliminary 18Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010

19 Scaling constrains η/s Demir et al η/s from hadronic phase is very large 10-12x(1/4π) No room for such values! Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Partonic flow dominates! Hadronic contribution cannot be large

20Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Au+Au at √s NN = 200 GeV PHENIX Final Run4 PHENIX Preliminary Run7 Minimum bias van Hees et al. Charm flows and scales Strong coupling η/s - estimate J/  v 2 still challenged by statistics

21 V 4 /(v 2 ) 2 Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Ideal hydro Estimate  4π(η/s) ~ 1- 2

Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM Viscosity required for KE T scaling  Lower Limit ? Chaudhuri Scaling constrains η/s Teaney

23 Model Comparison  /s ~ 0  /s = 1/4   /s = 2 x 1/4   /s = 3 x 1/4  Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Extracted η/s is small

24 Further constraints for η/s Strategy  quantify viscous Corrections via a fitting procedure, to obtain K as a function of N part Obtain from fits to data (viscous correction) Geometry (from model) Constrained by data Lattice EOS Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Hydro calculations Viscous correction influence v 2 /ε Data Teaney et al.

25 Knudsen Fits Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Viscous corrections grow with p T Excellent simultaneous fits achieved For p T > 3 GeV/c apparent viscous corrections decrease with p T

26 Viscous Corrections Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Onset of suppression! CGC Glauber  Quadratic dependence of δf  Breakdown of hydrodynamic ansatz for K* ~ 1  Onset of jet suppression

27 KE T /n q < 1GeV – soft physics Hydrodynamic flow Interplay soft-hard 3.0 < p T < 5 GeV/c Hard dominates: p T > 5 GeV/c Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010

Relaxation time limits η/s to small values 28Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Temperature dependence of η/s v2v2 pTpT G. Denicol et al

29Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Strong Coupling! For both light partons and heavy quarks The fluid which leads to large collective flow is also responsible for strong jet quenching !Detailed Calculations Required! Koide et al Relaxation time summary Phys.Rev.Lett.98:092301,2007

End 30Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010

31 New constraint for η/s Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Use viscous corrections as a lever Dusling & Teaney arXiv: Song & Heinz arXiv: Use viscous corrections dominate for p T > 1 GeV/c

32 Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Further validation of path length scaling! Very important but no new information! Scaling of Jet Quenching - Reaction plane dependence Scaling of Jet Quenching - Reaction plane dependence Estimates From slope Phys.Rev.Lett.103:142302,2009 Phys.Rev.C80:051901,2009 Automatic accounting of high-p T v 2

33 V 4 = k(v 2 ) 2 where k is the same for different particle species v 4 /(v 2 ) 2 ratio same for different particle species Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010

34 How are transport coefficients obtained from flow data? Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010  There are known known's  There are known unknowns  There unknown unknowns D. Rumsfeld Comparisons to viscous hydrodynamics calculation Hydrodynamically inspired fits to Data Issues Data (method, role of non- flow?) pre vs. post hadronic contributions Species dependence Extraction procedure Initial conditions (ε) Fit constraints etc Critical path issues are common to all methodologies

35 A B Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 New experimental constraint for Distinguishing Glauber and CGC Initial geometry! Participant eccentricity & deformation Phys. Rev. C 81, (R) (2010) Au+Au

36 Hydrodynamic Model Comparison  /s ~ 0  /s = 1/4   /s = 2 x 1/4   /s = 3 x 1/4  Initial conditions? Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010

37 η/s estimates Issues Data (role of non-flow?) pre vs post hadronic contributions Extraction procedure Initial conditions (ε) Fit constraints Species dependence etc Uncertainty in critical path items is common to all methodologies Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010

38 Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Courtesy S. Bass initial state pre-equilibrium QGP and hydrodynamic expansion hadronization hadronic phase and freeze-out hadronization Puzzle ? Indications of a crossover from space-time Measurements Indications of a crossover from space-time Measurements Source function (Distribution of pair separations) Encodes FSI Correlationfunction Inversion of this integral equation  Source Function Koonin Pratt Eqn. Hydrodynamic prediction A Cross Over strongly affects the Space-time Dynamics Anatomy of a RHIC collision

39 Therminator: A.Kisiel et al. Comput.Phys.Commun.174, 669 (2006) Thermal model with Bjorken longitudinal expansion and transverse Flow Spectra & yields constrain thermal properties Transverse radius ρ max : controls transverse extent Breakup time in fluid element rest frame, : controls longitudinal extent Emission duration : controls tails in long and out directions a controls x-t correlations The transition is Not a Strong First order Phase Transition? The transition is Not a Strong First order Phase Transition? Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, (2008) Roy A. Lacey, Stony Brook University, SEWM2010 Source Function Comparison to Models Give robust life time estimates  Consistent with Crossover transition