1 / 42

Correlation Femtoscopy R. Lednický, JINR Dubna & IP ASCR Prague

Correlation Femtoscopy R. Lednický, JINR Dubna & IP ASCR Prague. History QS correlations FSI correlations Correlation asymmetries Summary. History. Correlation femtoscopy :. measurement of space-time characteristics R, c ~ fm.

afia
Download Presentation

Correlation Femtoscopy R. Lednický, JINR Dubna & IP ASCR Prague

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Correlation Femtoscopy R. Lednický, JINR Dubna & IP ASCR Prague • History • QS correlations • FSI correlations • Correlation asymmetries • Summary R. Lednický Subatech Nantes

  2. History Correlation femtoscopy : measurement of space-time characteristics R, c ~ fm Fermi’34:e± NucleusCoulomb FSI in β-decay modifies the relative momentum (k) distribution → Fermi (correlation) factor F(k,Z,R) is sensitive to Nucleusradius R if charge Z » 1 of particle production using particle correlations

  3. Fermi factor in β-decay = |-k(r)|2 ~ (kR)-(Z/137)2 Z=83 (Bi) β- 2 fm 4 R=8 β+

  4. 2xGoldhaber, Lee & Pais GGLP’60: enhanced ++, --vs +- at small opening angles – interpreted as BE enhancement depending on fireball radius R0 p p  2+ 2 - n0 R0 = 0.75 fm

  5. Kopylov & Podgoretsky KP’71-75: settled basics of correlation femtoscopy in > 20 papers • proposed CF= Ncorr /Nuncorr& mixing techniques to construct Nuncorr • clarified role of space-time characteristics in various models • noted an analogy Grishin,KP’71 & differences KP’75 with HBT effect in Astronomy (see also Shuryak’73, Cocconi’74)

  6. QS symmetrization of production amplitude particle momentum correlations are sensitive to space-time structure of the source KP’71-75 total pair spin CF=1+(-1)Scos qx exp(-ip1x1) p1 2 x1 ,nns,s x2 1/R0 1 p2 2R0 nnt,t q =p1- p2 , x = x1- x2 |q| 0

  7. Intensity interferometry of classical electromagnetic fields in AstronomyHBT‘56  product of single-detector currentscf conceptual quanta measurement  two-photon counts p1 Correlation ~  cos px34 x1 x3 p-1 p2 x4 x2 detectors-antennas tuned to mean frequency  star | x34 | Space-time correlation measurement in Astronomy  source momentum picture p=  star angular radius   no info on star R,τ orthogonalto KP’75 momentum correlation measurement in particle physics  source space-time picture x

  8. HBT paraboloid mirrors focusing the light from a star on photomultipliers Measured product ST of electric currents from the two photomultipliers integrated during time T ~ hours and studied  ST / ST2- ST 2 ½ vs mirror distance d

  9. HBT measurement of the angular size of Sirius Ne ~ 108e/sec, f ~ 1013 Hz, fF ~ 5-45MHz Required T ~ (2 /Ne)2/F ~ hours  ST / ST2- ST 2 ½ Normalized to 1 at d=0

  10. momentum correlation (GGLP,KP) measurements are impossible in Astronomy due to extremely large stellar space-time dimensions while • space-time correlation (HBT) measurements can be realized also in Laboratory: Intensity-correlation spectroscopy Goldberger,Lewis,Watson’63-66 Measuring phase of x-ray scattering amplitude Fetter’65 & spectral line shape and width Glauber’65 Phillips, Kleiman, Davis’67: linewidth measurement from a mercurury discharge lamp 900 MHz t nsec

  11. GGLP’60 data plotted as CF p p  2+ 2 - n0 R0~1 fm

  12. 3-dim fit: CF=1+exp(-Rx2qx2 –Ry2qy2-Rz2qz2-2Rxz2qxqz) Examples of present data: NA49 & STAR Correlation strength or chaoticity Interferometry or correlation radii STAR  KK NA49 Coulomb corrected z x y

  13. “General” parameterization at |q|  0 Particles on mass shell & azimuthal symmetry  5 variables: q = {qx , qy , qz}  {qout , qside , qlong}, pair velocity v = {vx,0,vz} q0 = qp/p0 qv = qxvx+ qzvz y  side Grassberger’77 RL’78 x  out transverse pair velocity vt z  long beam cos qx=1-½ (qx)2…exp(-Rx2qx2 –Ry2qy2-Rz2qz2-Rxz2qx qz) Interferometry or correlation radii: Rx2 =½  (x-vxt)2 , Ry2 =½  (y)2 , Rz2 =½  (z-vzt)2  Podgoretsky’83;often called cartesian or BP’95 parameterization

  14. f (degree) KP (71-75) … Probing source shape and emission duration Static Gaussian model with space and time dispersions R2, R||2, 2 Rx2 = R2 +v22  Ry2 = R2 Rz2 = R||2 +v||22 Emission duration 2 = (Rx2- Ry2)/v2 If elliptic shape also in transverse plane  RyRsideoscillates with pair azimuth f Rside2 fm2 Out-of plane Circular In-plane Rside(f=90°) small Out-of reaction plane A Rside (f=0°) large In reaction plane z B

  15. Probing source dynamics - expansion Dispersion of emitter velocities & limited emission momenta (T)  x-p correlation: interference dominated by pions from nearby emitters Resonances GKP’71 ..  Interference probes only a part of the source Strings Bowler’85 ..  Interferometry radii decrease with pair velocity Hydro Pratt’84,86 Kolehmainen, Gyulassy’86 Makhlin-Sinyukov’87 Pt=160MeV/c Pt=380 MeV/c Bertch, Gong, Tohyama’88 Hama, Padula’88 Pratt, Csörgö, Zimanyi’90 Rout Rside Mayer, Schnedermann, Heinz’92 Rout Rside ….. Collective transverse flow F RsideR/(1+mt F2/T)½ Longitudinal boost invariant expansion during proper freeze-out (evolution) time  1 in LCMS }  Rlong(T/mt)½/coshy

  16. AGSSPSRHIC: radii Clear centrality dependence Weak energy dependence STAR Au+Au at 200 AGeV 0-5% central Pb+Pb or Au+Au

  17. AGSSPSRHIC: radii vs pt Central Au+Au or Pb+Pb Rlong:increases smoothly & points to short evolution time  ~ 8-10 fm/c Rside,Rout: change little & point to strong transverse flow t~ 0.4-0.6 & short emission duration  ~ 2 fm/c

  18. Interferometry wrt reaction plane STAR’04 Au+Au 200 GeV 20-30% Typical hydro evolution p+p+ & p-p- Out-of-plane Circular In-plane Time STAR data:  oscillations like for a static out-of-plane source stronger then Hydro & RQMD  Short evolution time

  19. Expected evolution of HI collision vs RHIC data Bass’02 QGP and hydrodynamic expansion hadronic phase and freeze-out initial state pre-equilibrium hadronization Kinetic freeze out dN/dt Chemical freeze out RHIC side & out radii: 2 fm/c Rlong & radii vs reaction plane: 10 fm/c 1 fm/c 5 fm/c 10 fm/c 50 fm/c time

  20. Hydro assuming ideal fluid explains strong collective () flows at RHIC but not the interferometryresults Puzzle ? But comparing Bass, Dumitru, .. 1+1D Hydro+UrQMD 1+1D H+UrQMD Huovinen, Kolb, .. 2+1D Hydro with 2+1D Hydro Hirano, Nara, .. 3D Hydro  kinetic evolution ? not enough F ~ conserves Rout,Rlong & increases Rside at small pt (resonances ?)  Good prospect for 3D Hydro + hadron transport + ? initial F

  21. Why ~ conservation of spectra & radii? Sinyukov, Akkelin, Hama’02: Based on the fact that the known analytical solution of nonrelativistic BE with sphericallysymmetric initial conditions coincides with free streaming ti’= ti +T, xi’= xi+ vi T , vi v =(p1+p2)/(E1+E2) one may assume the kinetic evolution close to free streaming alsoin realconditionsand thus ~ conserving initial spectra and Csizmadia, Csörgö, Lukács’98 initial interferometry radii qxi’ qxi +q(p1+p2)T/(E1+E2) = qxi ~ justify hydro motivated freezeout parametrizations

  22. Checks with kinetic model Amelin, RL, Malinina, Pocheptsov, Sinyukov’05: System cools & expands but initial Boltzmann momentum distribution & interferomety radii are conserved due to developed collective flow 1 2 3   ~  ~ tens fm   =  = 0 in static model in kinetic model

  23. Hydro motivated parametrizations BlastWave: Schnedermann, Sollfrank, Heinz’93 Retiere, Lisa’04 Kniege’05

  24. BW fit of Au-Au 200 GeV Retiere@LBL’05 T=106 ± 1 MeV <bInPlane> = 0.571 ± 0.004 c <bOutOfPlane> = 0.540 ± 0.004 c RInPlane = 11.1 ± 0.2 fm ROutOfPlane = 12.1 ± 0.2 fm Life time (t) = 8.4 ± 0.2 fm/c Emission duration = 1.9 ± 0.2 fm/c c2/dof = 120 / 86 R βz=z/ βx=β0(r/R)

  25. Buda-Lund: Csanad, Csörgö, Lörstad’04 Other parametrizations Similar to BW but T(x) & (x) hot core ~200 MeV surrounded by cool ~100 MeV shell Describes spectra, radii, v2() Krakow: Broniowski, Florkowski’01 Single freezeout model + Hubble-like flow + resonances Describes spectra, radii but Rlong ? may account for initial F Kiev-Nantes: Borysova, Sinyukov, volume emission Erazmus, Karpenko’05 Generalizes BW using hydro motivated closed freezeout hypersurface Additional surface emission introduces x-t correlation  helps to desribe Rout surface emission at smaller flow velocity Fit points to initial 0F of ~ 0.3

  26. |-k(r)|2 Similar to Coulomb distortion of -decay Fermi’34: Final State Interaction Migdal, Watson, Sakharov, … Koonin, GKW, ... fcAc(G0+iF0) s-wave strong FSI FSI } nn e-ikr  -k(r)  [ e-ikr +f(k)eikr/r ] CF pp Coulomb |1+f/r|2 kr+kr F=1+ _______ + … eicAc ka } } Bohr radius Coulomb only Point-like Coulomb factor k=|q|/2  FSI is sensitive to source size r and scattering amplitude f It complicates CF analysis but makes possible  Femtoscopy with nonidentical particlesK,p, .. & Coalescence deuterons, .. Study “exotic” scattering,K, KK,, p,, .. Study relative space-time asymmetriesdelays, flow

  27. Lyuboshitz-Podgoretsky’79: FSI effect on CF of neutral kaons KsKs from KK also show BE enhancement STAR data on CF(KsKs) Goal: no Coulomb. But R may go up by ~1 fm if neglected FSI in KK (~50% KsKs) f0(980) & a0(980) l = 0.9  0.2 R = 4.1 0.5 fm 5.3  0.6 fm RL-Lyuboshitz’82 t

  28. Long tails in RQMD: r* = 21 fm for r* < 50 fm NA49 central Pb+Pb 158 AGeV vs RQMD 29 fm for r* < 500 fm Fit CF=Norm[Purity RQMD(r* Scaler*)+1-Purity] RQMD overestimatesr* by 10-20% at SPS cf ~ OK at AGS worse at RHIC Scale=0.76 Scale=0.92 Scale=0.83 p

  29. Goal: No Coulomb suppression as in pp CF & p CFs at AGS & SPS & STAR Wang-Pratt’99 Stronger sensitivity to R singlet triplet Scattering lengths, fm: 2.31 1.78 Fit using RL-Lyuboshitz’82 with Effective radii, fm: 3.04 3.22  consistent with estimated impurity R~ 3-4 fm consistent with the radius from pp CF STAR AGS SPS =0.50.2 R=4.50.7 fm R=3.10.30.2 fm

  30. mt scaling – transverse flow π, K, p, Λ radii show mt scaling expected in hydrodynamics ππ KsKs pΛ pΛ

  31. Correlation study of particle interaction +&  & pscattering lengthsf0 from NA49 and STAR Fits using RL-Lyuboshitz’82 pp STAR CF(p) data point to Ref0(p) < Ref0(pp)  0 Imf0(p) ~ Imf0(pp) ~ 1 fm  NA49 CF(+) vs RQMD with SI scale:f0siscaf0 (=0.232fm) - sisca = 0.60.1 compare ~0.8 from SPT & BNL data E765 K  e NA49 CF() data prefer |f0()| f0(NN) ~ 20 fm

  32. Correlation asymmetries CF of identical particles sensitive to terms evenin k*r* (e.g. through cos 2k*r*)  measures only dispersion of the components of relative separation r* = r1*- r2*in pair cms • CF of nonidentical particles sensitive also to terms odd in k*r* • measures also relative space-time asymmetries - shifts r* RL, Lyuboshitz, Erazmus, Nouais PLB 373 (1996) 30  Construct CF+x and CF-x with positive and negativek*-projectionk*x on a given directionx and study CF-ratio CF+x/CFx

  33. Simplified idea of CF asymmetry(valid for Coulomb FSI) Assume emitted later than p or closer to the center  x v Longer tint Stronger CF v1  CF  k*x > 0 v > vp p p v2 k*/= v1-v2 x Shorter tint Weaker CF v CF  v1 k*x < 0 v < vp p  v2 p

  34. CF-asymmetry for charged particles Asymmetry arises mainly from Coulomb FSI CF  Ac() |F(-i,1,i)|2 =(k*a)-1, =k*r*+k*r* r*|a| F  1+  = 1+r*/a+k*r*/(k*a) k*1/r* } ±226 fm for ±p ±388 fm for +± Bohr radius k*  0  CF+x/CFx  1+2 x* /a x* = x1*-x2* rx*  Projection of the relative separation r* in pair cms on the direction x x* = t(x - vtt) In LCMS (vz=0) or x || v: CF asymmetry is determined by space and time asymmetries

  35. Usually: x and t comparable RQMD Pb+Pb p +X central 158 AGeV : x = -5.2 fm t = 2.9 fm/c +p-asymmetry effect 2x*/a -8% x* = -8.5 fm Shift x in out direction is due to collective transverse flow & higher thermal velocity of lighter particles xp > xK > x > 0 x RL’99-01 out tT F tT = flow velocity = transverse thermal velocity side t t = F+tT = observed transverse velocity y F  xrx= rtcos =rt (t2+F2-tT2)/(2tF)  mass dependence yry= rtsin = 0 rt zrz sinh = 0 in LCMS & Bjorken long. exp. measures edge effectat yCMS 0

  36. pion BW Retiere@LBL’05 Distribution of emission points at a given equal velocity: - Left, bx = 0.73c, by = 0 - Right, bx = 0.91c, by = 0 Dash lines: average emission Rx  Rx(p) < Rx(K) < Rx(p) px = 0.3 GeV/c px = 0.15 GeV/c Kaon px = 0.53 GeV/c px = 1.07 GeV/c For a Gaussian density profile with a radius RG and flow velocity profile F(r) = 0r/ RG RL’04, Akkelin-Sinyukov’96: x = RG bx0/[02+T/mt] Proton px = 1.01 GeV/c px = 2.02 GeV/c

  37. Decreasing R(pt): x-p correlation • usually attributed to collective flow • taken for granted • femtoscopy the only way to confirm x-p correlations x2-p correlation: yes x-p correlation: yes • Non-flow possibility • hot core surrounded by cool shell • important ingredient of Buda-Lund hydro pictureCsörgő & Lörstad’96 x2-p correlation: yes x-p correlation: no radial gradient of T x = RG bx0/[02+T/mt+T/Tr] decreasing asymmetry ~1

  38. NA49 & STAR out-asymmetries Au+Au central sNN=130 GeV Pb+Pb central 158 AGeV not corrected for ~ 25% impurity corrected for impurity r* RQMD scaled by 0.8 p K p Mirror symmetry (~ same mechanism for  and  mesons)   RQMD, BW ~ OK  points to strong transverse flow (t yields ~ ¼ of CF asymmetry)

  39. Summary • Wealth of data on correlations of various particle species (,K0,p,,) is available & gives unique space-time info on production characteristics including collective flows • Rather direct evidence for strong transverse flow in HIC at SPS & RHIC comes from nonidentical particle correlations • Weak energy dependence of correlation radii contradicts to 2+1D hydro& transport calculations which strongly overestimate out&long radii at RHIC. However, a good perspective seems to be for 3D hydro?+Finitial& transport • A number of succesful hydro motivated parametrizations give useful hints for the microscopic models (but fit  may true ) • Info on two-particle strong interaction:  &  & pscattering lengths from HIC at SPS and RHIC. Good perspective at RHIC and LHC

  40. Apologize for skipping • Coalescence data (new d, d from NA49) • Problem of non-Gaussian form Csörgö .. • Imaging technique Brown, Danielewicz, .. • Correlations of penetrating probes • Comparison of different colliding systems • Multiple FSI effects Wong, Zhang, ..; Kapusta, Li; Cramer, .. • Spin correlations Alexander, Lipkin; RL, Lyuboshitz • ……

  41. Kniege’05

  42. WF in continuouspnspectrum -k*(r*) WF in discrete pn spectrum b(r*) Coalescence: deuterons .. Edd3N/d3pd= B2 Epd3N/d3ppEnd3N/d3pnpppn½pd Coalescencefactor:B2 = (2)3(mpmn/md)-1t|b(r*)|2 ~ R-3 Triplet fraction=¾  unpolarized Ns Lyuboshitz (88) .. B2 Usually: np Much stronger energy dependence of B2 ~ R-3 than expected from pion and proton interferometry radii R(pp) ~ 4 fm from AGS to SPS

More Related