1. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 1 LHC Predictions: Phys. Lett. B666:320, 2008 (arXiv:0706.2336) RHIC Predictions: J. Phys. G35:044025, 2008 (arXiv:0710.0703) Testing String Theory with Jets William Horowitz The Ohio State University Columbia University Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies (FIAS) November 13, 2008 With many thanks to Miklos Gyulassy

2. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 2 A Little History: QCD as Theory of Strong Force –1935: Yukawa proposes pion as nuclear mediator –1947: Powell, et al., definitively distinguishes  from  –1947-: Particle zoo => 1962: Gell-Mann’s Eightfold Way => 1964:  - found at BNL –1965: Nambu and Hahn propose color to solve Pauli problem –1969-73: Feynman’s partons—weakly-coupled point-like subnuclear particles –1973: Coleman and Gross—Asymptotic freedom unique to nonabelian QFTs –1975: Jets—quarks (’75) and gluons (’79) –1992: SU(N c = 3) V. E. Barnes et al., OBSERVATION OF A HYPERON WITH STRANGENESS -3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 204 (1964) m   = 1686 +/- 12 MeV/c 2 C. M. G. Lattes, H. Muirhead, G. P. S. Occhialini, and C. F. Powell, PROCESSES INVOLVING CHARGED MESONS, Nature 159, 694 (1947).   D. Decamp et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B284, 151 (1992) Two and three jet events: R. Brandelik et al. (TASSO), Phys. Lett. B86, 243 (1979)

3. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 3 Traditional Toolbox for QCD Lattice QCDpQCD Previously only two methods: Two 10 Tflops QCDOC Computers: RBRC and DOE Diagrams!

4. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 4 Lattice QCD Traditional Tools (cont’d) Successful But limited pQCD All momenta Euclidean correlators Any quantity Small coupling (large momenta) de Florian, Sassot, Stratmann, Phys.Rev.D75:114010,2007 Davies et al. (HPQCD), PRL 92, 022001 (2004)

5. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 5 Maldacena Conjecture Large N c limit of d -dimensional conformal field theory dual to string theory on the product of d +1-dimensional Anti-de Sitter space with a compact manifold Bosonic part of IIB low energy effective action J Maldacena, Adv.Theor.Math.Phys.2:231-252,1998 Geometry of bosonic part of 10D supergravity, near horizon limit T Plasma = T Hawking

6. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 6 Regime of Applicability –Large N c, constant ‘t Hooft coupling ( ) Small quantum corrections –Large ‘t Hooft coupling Small string vibration corrections –Only tractable case is both limits at once Classical supergravity (SUGRA) Q.M. S SYM => C.M. S NG J Friess, S Gubser, G Michalogiorgakis, S Pufu, Phys Rev D75 :106003, 2007

7. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 7 Strong Coupling Calculation The supergravity double conjecture: QCD  SYM  IIB – IF super Yang-Mills (SYM) is not too different from QCD, & – IF Maldacena conjecture is true –Then a tool exists to calculate strongly- coupled QCD in SUGRA

8. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 8 Testing String Theory Kallosh and Linde, JCAP 0704:017,2007: Too small to be detected Huovinen et al., Phys. Lett. B503 (2001) 58 Adapted from P Sorensen, WWND ‘08, arXiv:0808.0503 => 1/4  ?

9. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 9 What’s All the Fuss About? …data [from RHIC] appear to be more accurately described using string theory methods than with more traditional approaches. Hold yer horses! Let’s look at the details Brian Greene (TV) Will Horowitz (OSU)

10. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 10 QGP Creation –Robust prediction of QCD phase transition Lattice: Walecka:Hagedorn: J. D. Walecka, Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics, 2nd ed. S. C. Frautschi, Phys. Rev. D3, 2821 (1971) Karsh et al., Phys. Rev. D62, 034021 (2000), Nucl. Phys. A698, 199 (2002), PoS LAT2005, 193 (2006) M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D77, 014511 (2008)

11. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 11 Probing the QGP Low momentum (low-p T ) particles –Collective dynamics of the bulk Statistical Models: temperature Hydrodynamics: spectra, elliptic flow HBT (Hanbury-Brown Twiss): freeze-out surface High momentum (high-p T ) particles –Parton jets, vacuum fragmentation Learn about medium (jet tomography) Learn about energy loss mechanism (pQCD, ST)

12. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 12 Geometry of a HI Collision Hydro propagates IC –Results depend strongly on initial conditions Viscosity reduces eventual momentum anisotropy T Ludlum and L McLerran, Phys. Today 56N10 :48 (2003) M Kaneta, Results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (Part II)

13. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 13 –Hydro  /s small ~.1 QGP fluid near-perfect liquid –Naïve pQCD =>  /s ~ 1 New estimates ~.1 Z Xu, C Greiner, and H Stoecker, PRL101:082302 (2008) –Lowest order AdS result:  /s = 1/4  Universality? Perfect Fluidity: AdS + Hydro’s Most Famous Success D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C68, 034913 (2003) P Kovtun, D Son, and A Starinets, Phys.Rev.Lett.94:111601 (2005) P Kats and P Petrov, arXiv:0712.0743 M Brigante et al., Phys. Rev. D77 :126006 (2008)

14. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 14 IC, Viscosity, and Hydro Sharper IC (CGC) => viscosity Softer IC (Glauber) => “perfect” Test IC with fluctuations? Control over hadronization? T Hirano, et al., Phys. Lett. B636 :299-304, 2006 P Sorensen, WWND ‘08, arXiv:0808.0503

15. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 15 IC smaller effect Vacuum fragmentation well controlled Compare unmodified p+p collisions to A+A: Why High-p T Jets? pTpT pTpT Figures from http://www.star.bnl.gov/central/focus/highPt/ Longitudinal (beam pipe) direction 2D Transverse directions

16. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 16 Jet Physics Terminology pTpT  Naïvely: if medium has no effect, then R AA = 1 Common variables used are transverse momentum, p T, and angle with respect to the reaction plane,  Convenient to Fourier expand R AA :

17. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 17 pQCD Success at RHIC: –Consistency: R AA (  )~R AA (  ) –Null Control: R AA (  )~1 –GLV Prediction: Theory~Data for reasonable fixed L~5 fm and dN g /dy~dN  /dy Y. Akiba for the PHENIX collaboration, hep-ex/0510008 (circa 2005)

18. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 18 e - R AA too small M. Djorjevic, M. Gyulassy, R. Vogt, S. Wicks, Phys. Lett. B632 :81-86 (2006) wQGP not ruled out, but what if we try strong coupling? D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C68, 034913 (2003) Hydro  /s too small v 2 too large A. Drees, H. Feng, and J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C71 :034909 (2005) (first by E. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C66 :027902 (2002)) Trouble for wQGP Picture

19. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 19 PHENIX, Phys.Rev.Lett.101:082301,2008 Mach wave-like structures s strong =(3/4) s weak, similar to Lattice  /s AdS/CFT ~ 1/4  << 1 ~  /s pQCD e - R AA ~ ,  R AA ; e - R AA (  ) T. Hirano and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A69 :71-94 (2006) Qualitative AdS/CFT Successes: PHENIX, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 172301 (2007) J. P. Blaizot, E. Iancu, U. Kraemmer, A. Rebhan, hep-ph/0611393 Naïve AdS/CFT S. S. Gubser, S. S. Pufu, and A. Yarom, arXiv:0706.0213

20. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 20 AdS/CFT Energy Loss Models Langevin model –Collisional energy loss for heavy quarks –Restricted to low p T –pQCD vs. AdS/CFT computation of D, the diffusion coefficient ASW model –Radiative energy loss model for all parton species –pQCD vs. AdS/CFT computation of –Debate over its predicted magnitude ST drag calculation –Drag coefficient for a massive quark moving through a strongly coupled SYM plasma at uniform T –not yet used to calculate observables: let’s do it! Moore and Teaney, Phys.Rev.C71:064904,2005 Casalderrey-Solana and Teaney, Phys.Rev.D74:085012,2006; JHEP 0704:039,2007 BDMPS, Nucl.Phys.B484:265-282,1997 Armesto, Salgado, and Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 114003 Liu, Ragagopal, Wiedemann, PRL 97:182301,2006; JHEP 0703:066,2007 Gubser, Phys.Rev.D74:126005,2006 Herzog, Karch, Kovtun, Kozcaz, Yaffe, JHEP 0607:013,2006

21. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 21 AdS/CFT Drag Model heavy quark jet energy loss by embedding string in AdS space dp T /dt = -  p T  =    T 2 /2M q J Friess, S Gubser, G Michalogiorgakis, S Pufu, Phys Rev D75 :106003, 2007

22. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 22 Energy Loss Comparison –AdS/CFT Drag: dp T /dt ~ -(T 2 /M q ) p T –Similar to Bethe-Heitler dp T /dt ~ -(T 3 /M q 2 ) p T –Very different from LPM dp T /dt ~ -LT 3 log(p T /M q ) t x Q, m v D7 Probe Brane D3 Black Brane (horizon) 3+1D Brane Boundary Black Hole z = 0 z h =  T z m = 2  m / 1/2

23. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 23 R AA Approximation –Above a few GeV, quark production spectrum is approximately power law: dN/dp T ~ 1/p T (n+1), where n(p T ) has some momentum dependence –We can approximate R AA (p T ): R AA ~ (1-  (p T )) n(p T ), where p f = (1-  )p i (i.e.  = 1-p f /p i ) y=0 RHIC LHC

24. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 24 –Use LHC’s large p T reach and identification of c and b to distinguish between pQCD, AdS/CFT Asymptotic pQCD momentum loss: String theory drag momentum loss: –Independent of p T and strongly dependent on M q ! –T 2 dependence in exponent makes for a very sensitive probe –Expect:  pQCD 0 vs.  AdS indep of p T !! dR AA (p T )/dp T > 0 => pQCD; dR AA (p T )/dp T ST  rad   s L 2 log(p T /M q )/p T Looking for a Robust, Detectable Signal  ST  1 - Exp(-  L),  =    T 2 /2M q S. Gubser, Phys.Rev. D74 :126005 (2006); C. Herzog et al. JHEP 0607:013,2006

25. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 25 Model Inputs –AdS/CFT Drag: nontrivial mapping of QCD to SYM “Obvious”:  s =  SYM = const., T SYM = T QCD –D 2  T = 3 inspired:  s =.05 –pQCD/Hydro inspired:  s =.3 (D 2  T ~ 1) “Alternative”: = 5.5, T SYM = T QCD /3 1/4 Start loss at thermalization time  0 ; end loss at T c –WHDG convolved radiative and elastic energy loss  s =.3 –WHDG radiative energy loss (similar to ASW) = 40, 100 –Use realistic, diffuse medium with Bjorken expansion –PHOBOS (dN g /dy = 1750); KLN model of CGC (dN g /dy = 2900)

26. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 26 –LHC Prediction Zoo: What a Mess! –Let’s go through step by step –Unfortunately, large suppression pQCD similar to AdS/CFT–Large suppression leads to flattening –Use of realistic geometry and Bjorken expansion allows saturation below.2 –Significant rise in R AA (p T ) for pQCD Rad+El–Naïve expectations met in full numerical calculation: dR AA (p T )/dp T > 0 => pQCD; dR AA (p T )/dp T ST LHC c, b R AA p T Dependence WH, M. Gyulassy, arXiv:0706.2336

27. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 27 But what about the interplay between mass and momentum? –Take ratio of c to b R AA (p T ) pQCD: Mass effects die out with increasing p T –Ratio starts below 1, asymptotically approaches 1. Approach is slower for higher quenching ST: drag independent of p T, inversely proportional to mass. Simple analytic approx. of uniform medium gives R cb pQCD (p T ) ~ n b M c / n c M b ~ M c /M b ~.27 –Ratio starts below 1; independent of p T An Enhanced Signal R cb pQCD (p T )  1 -  s n (p T ) L 2 log(M b /M c ) ( /p T )

28. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 28 LHC R c AA (p T )/R b AA (p T ) Prediction Recall the Zoo: –Taking the ratio cancels most normalization differences seen previously –pQCD ratio asymptotically approaches 1, and more slowly so for increased quenching (until quenching saturates) –AdS/CFT ratio is flat and many times smaller than pQCD at only moderate p T WH, M. Gyulassy, arXiv:0706.2336 [nucl-th]

29. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 29 –Speed limit estimate for applicability of AdS drag  <  crit = (1 + 2M q / 1/2 T) 2 ~ 4M q 2 /(  T 2 ) –Limited by M charm ~ 1.2 GeV Similar to BH LPM –  crit ~ M q /( T) –No Single T for QGP smallest  crit for largest T T = T(  0, x=y=0): “(” largest  crit for smallest T T = T c : “]” Not So Fast! D3 Black Brane D7 Probe Brane Q Worldsheet boundary Spacelike  if  >  crit Trailing String “Brachistochrone” “z” x5x5

30. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 30 LHC R c AA (p T )/R b AA (p T ) Prediction (with speed limits) –T(  0 ): (, corrections unlikely for smaller momenta –T c : ], corrections likely for higher momenta WH, M. Gyulassy, arXiv:0706.2336 [nucl-th]

31. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 31 Measurement at RHIC –Future detector upgrades will allow for identified c and b quark measurements y=0 RHIC LHC NOT slowly varying –No longer expect pQCD dR AA /dp T > 0 Large n requires corrections to naïve R cb ~ M c /M b –RHIC production spectrum significantly harder than LHC

32. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 32 RHIC c, b R AA p T Dependence Large increase in n (p T ) overcomes reduction in E-loss and makes pQCD dR AA /dp T < 0, as well WH, M. Gyulassy, arXiv:0710.0703 [nucl-th]

33. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 33 RHIC R cb Ratio Wider distribution of AdS/CFT curves due to large n : increased sensitivity to input parameters Advantage of RHIC: lower T => higher AdS speed limits WH, M. Gyulassy, arXiv:0710.0703 [nucl-th] pQCD AdS/CFT pQCD AdS/CFT

34. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 34 Conclusions Previous AdS qualitative successes inconclusive AdS/CFT Drag observables calculated Generic differences (pQCD vs. AdS/CFT Drag) seen in R AA –Masked by extreme pQCD Enhancement from ratio of c to b R AA –Discovery potential in Year 1 LHC Run Understanding regions of self-consistency crucial RHIC measurement possible

35. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 35 Backup Slides

36. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 36 Another AdS Test: Correlations B Betz, M Gyulassy, J Noronha, and G Torrieri, arXiv:0807.4526

37. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 37 Geometry of a HI Collision Medium density and jet production are wide, smooth distributions Use of unrealistic geometries strongly bias results M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl.Phys.A750:30-63,2005 1D Hubble flow =>  (  ) ~ 1/  => T(  ) ~ 1/  1/3 S. Wicks, WH, M. Djordjevic, M. Gyulassy, Nucl.Phys.A784:426-442,2007

38. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 38 Langevin Model –Langevin equations (assumes  v ~ 1 to neglect radiative effects): –Relate drag coef. to diffusion coef.: –IIB Calculation: Use of Langevin requires relaxation time be large compared to the inverse temperature: AdS/CFT here

39. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 39 But There’s a Catch (II) Limited experimental p T reach? –ATLAS and CMS do not seem to be limited in this way (claims of year 1 p T reach of ~100 GeV) but systematic studies have not yet been performed ALICE Physics Performance Report, Vol. II

40. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 40 LHC  Predictions WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in preparation Our predictions show a significant increase in R AA as a function of p T This rise is robust over the range of predicted dN g /dy for the LHC that we used This should be compared to the flat in p T curves of AWS- based energy loss (next slide) We wish to understand the origin of this difference

41. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 41 WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in preparation Asymptopia at the LHC Asymptotic pocket formulae:  E rad /E   3 Log(E/  2 L)/E  E el /E   2 Log((E T) 1/2 /m g )/E

42. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 42 K. J. Eskola, H. Honkanen, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. A747 :511:529 (2005) A. Dainese, C. Loizides, G. Paic, Eur. Phys. J. C38 :461-474 (2005) K. J. Eskola, H. Honkanen, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. A747 :511:529 (2005)

43. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 43 Pion R AA Is it a good measurement for tomography? –Yes: small experimental error Claim: we should not be so immediately dis- missive of the pion R AA as a tomographic tool –Maybe not: some models appear “fragile”

44. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 44 Fragility: A Poor Descriptor All energy loss models with a formation time saturate at some R min AA > 0 The questions asked should be quantitative : –Where is R data AA compared to R min AA ? –How much can one change a model’s controlling parameter so that it still agrees with a measurement within error? –Define sensitivity, s = min. param/max. param that is consistent with data within error

45. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 45 Different Models have Different Sensitivities to the Pion R AA GLV: s < 2 Higher Twist: s < 2 DGLV+El+Geom: s < 2 AWS: s ~ 3 WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in preparation

46. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 46 T Renk and K Eskola, Phys. Rev. C 75, 054910 (2007) WH, S. Wicks, M. Gyulassy, M. Djordjevic, in preparation

47. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 47 A Closer Look at ASW K. J. Eskola, H. Honkanen, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. A747 :511:529 (2005) A. Dainese, C. Loizides, G. Paic, Eur. Phys. J. C38 :461-474 (2005) The lack of sensitivity needs to be more closely examined because (a) unrealistic geometry (hard cylinders) and no expansion and (b) no expansion shown against older data (whose error bars have subsequently shrunk (a)(b)

48. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 48 –Surface Emission: one phrase explanation of fragility All models become surface emitting with infinite E loss –Surface Bias occurs in all energy loss models Expansion + Realistic geometry => model probes a large portion of medium Surface Bias vs. Surface Emission A. Majumder, HP2006S. Wicks, WH, M. Gyulassy, and M. Djordjevic, nucl-th/0512076

49. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 49 A Closer Look at ASW –Difficult to draw conclusions on inherent surface bias in AWS from this for three reasons: No Bjorken expansion Glue and light quark contributions not disentangled Plotted against L input (complicated mapping from L input to physical distance) A. Dainese, C. Loizides, G. Paic, Eur. Phys. J. C38 :461-474 (2005)

50. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 50 Additional Discerning Power –Adil-Vitev in-medium fragmentation rapidly approaches, and then broaches, 1 »Does not include partonic energy loss, which will be nonnegligable as ratio goes to unity

51. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 51 Conclusions AdS/CFT Drag observables calculated Generic differences (pQCD vs. AdS/CFT Drag) seen in R AA –Masked by extreme pQCD Enhancement from ratio of c to b R AA –Discovery potential in Year 1 LHC Run Understanding regions of self- consistency crucial RHIC measurement possible

52. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 52 Shameless self-promotion by the presenter

53. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 53 Geometry of a HI Collision Medium density and jet production are wide, smooth distributions Use of unrealistic geometries strongly bias results M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl.Phys.A750:30-63,2005 1D Hubble flow =>  (  ) ~ 1/  => T(  ) ~ 1/  1/3 S. Wicks, WH, M. Djordjevic, M. Gyulassy, Nucl.Phys.A784:426-442,2007

54. 11/13/08 William Horowitz Nuclear Seminar, The Ohio State University 54 Outline Motivation for studying AdS/CFT Introduction to Heavy Ion Physics pQCD vs. AdS Drag: Expectations, Results, Limitations Conclusions