400 likes | 540 Views
Weak and Strong Coupling Heavy Quark Energy Loss. W. A. Horowitz University of Cape Town March 18, 2015. R. Morad and WAH, JHEP 1411 (2014) 017 [1409.7545] WAH, arXiv:1501.04693. Motivation: Phenomenological QCD. What are the emergent, many body dynamics of non- Abelian plasma?.
E N D
Weak and Strong Coupling Heavy Quark Energy Loss W. A. Horowitz University of Cape Town March 18, 2015 R. Morad and WAH, JHEP 1411 (2014) 017 [1409.7545] WAH, arXiv:1501.04693 ECT*
Motivation: Phenomenological QCD • What are the emergent, many body dynamics of non-Abelianplasma? Long Range Plan, 2008 ECT*
Immodest Goal • Difficult even in E&M • In QCD… ? ? ? ? ? ECT*
This is a Workshop, so… • Bold claim: strong-coupling describes physics at all experimentally relevant scales at RHIC/LHC • (pQCD rad + colldescribes tomo. probes) ECT*
Seek Physics of QGP High-pT Light Hadrons/Jets EM Probes Low-pT particles Your least favorite measurement QGP Quarkonia Open Heavy Flavor Searching for this coherent, consistent picture that describes data ECT*
Why Heavy Quarks? • Nontrivial to test P(DpT | pT, L, T, MQ, R) ALICE 0-20% D pQCD Rad Only fails as fcn of MQ Wicks, WAH, Djordjevic, Gyulassy, NPA784 (2007) ( ( LO AdS/CFT fails as fcn of T WAH, PhD Thesis, arXiv:1011.4316 ECT* WAH, PANIC11 (arXiv:1108.5876)
Gross Oversimplificationof LO QGP Phenomenology • We don’t have a consistent theoretical picture that describes all observables. E.g.: pQCD AdS/CFT low-pT/ collective Rapid thermalization h/s Novel/better weak- coupling physics? Suppression v2 Light & heavy flavors RHIC & LHC high-pT/ energy loss Novel/better strong- coupling physics? ECT*
Review of Weakly-Coupled Picture • Imagine weakly-coupled gas of quarks and gluons • Can trivially compute s, e, etc. • Systematic deviation from Lattice Wuppertal, JHEP 1208 (2012) 053 ECT*
Nearly Inviscid Flow • t0 and h/s from hydro an order of magnitude smaller than pQCD estimate Schenke, Tribedy, Venugopalan, PRL 108:25231 (2012) ECT*
High-pT Observables • Learn about E-loss mechanism • Most direct probe of DoF(scale) pQCD Picture ECT*
pQCD Energy Loss • Use WHDG (nucl-th/0512076) as canonical example (see also Djordjevic & Heinz, 0802.1230) • Weakly-coupled plasma • Medium organizes into Debye-screened centers • T ~ 350 MeV, as = 0.3 (=> g ~ 2) • m ~ gT ~ 0.5 GeV • lmfp ~ 1/g2T ~ 1 fm • RAu ~ 6 fm • Collisional 2 => 2 Processes: HTL from Braaten and Thoma • dpT/dL ~ T2 log(pT/M) • Radiative 2 => 3 Processes: DGLV • LPM => dpT/dL ~ LT3 log(pT/M) • E-loss incorporated self-consistently, no tuning of weights • LO pQCDor FONLL production, KKP or FONLL FFs; reasonable geometry; no shadowing ECT*
Current Lack of Precision • Extracting physics from E-loss requires controlled productionandfragmentation CMS, EurPhysJC72 (2012) WAH, arXiv:1501.04693 ECT*
Nontrivial HF FFs • c,b => D, B; D, B => e- break down at low-pT PHENIX PRC84 (2011) 044905 ECT* WAH, arXiv:1501.04693
Compare to RHIC & LHC • RHIC RAA: not unreasonable rmed • dNg/dy = 1400+200 • as = 0.3, fixed • 1400-375 PHENIX, PRC77 (2008) • For LHC predictions: change only rmed ∝dNch/dh ECT*
pQCD E-loss Describes RHIC/LHC • Constrained by RHIC, LO pQCD predictions strikingly similar to LHC data LHC CMS h± 0-5% WHDG p0 LHC ALICE D WHDG D RHIC RHIC LHC CMS h± 40-50% WHDG p0 LHC CMS, Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) CMS, PRL109 (2012) ALICE, JHEP1209 (2012) 112 CMS, JHEP 1205 (2012) 063 PHENIX PRL105 (2010) ECT*
Sins of Our Fathers • Advantages: • Correct quantum treatment of radiation • Disadvantages: • Multigluon emission • Eikonal, collinear approx AndriRasoanaivo Factor 2 uncertainty in medium param from eik, collapprox! ? WAH and B Cole, PRC81 (2010) 024909 ECT* JET, 1312.5003
Hail Mary: Outlook • Is pQCD calculation self-consistent? • Compute NLO, running coupling corrections • What scale(s) do couplings run at? • pT, kT, T? • Derive short-distance corrections • Quantitative p+Asuppression pred. Isobel Kolbé Garry Kemp ECT*
Gross Oversimplificationof LO QGP Phenomenology • We don’t have a consistent theoretical picture that describes all observables. E.g.: pQCD AdS/CFT low-pT/ collective Rapid thermalization h/s Novel/better weak- coupling physics? Suppression v2 Light & heavy flavors RHIC & LHC high-pT/ energy loss Novel/better strong- coupling physics? ECT*
Reminder of AdS Successes I • Rapid thermalization • ttherm ~ 0.35 fm Chesler and Yaffe, PRL106 (2011) ECT*
Reminder of AdS Successes II • Bulk Properties • Energy density, entropy, shear viscosity Luzum and Romatschke, PC78 (2008) Wuppertal, JHEP 1208 (2012) 053 ECT*
High-pT Observables • Learn about E-loss mechanism • Most direct probe of DoF(scale) AdS/CFT Picture ECT*
Why AdS at High-pT? • Perturbatively, 3 couplings for rad E-loss • Not known at which scale(s) couplings run • TQGP ~ LQCD => g(2pT) ~ 2 • Always “small” scale in problem • Perhaps low-Q2 plasma physics dominates over high-Q2 in E-loss physics? • Factorization not proven in AA • Work here assumes all couplings strong • Cf, e.g., Casalderrey-Solana et al. [JHEP 1410 (2014) 19], Iancu et al. [1410.6448] for alternative hybrid models ECT*
LO AdS for Heavy High-pT • Assume all couplings large dpT/dt = - mpT m = pl1/2T2/2Mq Herzog et al., JHEP 0607 (2006) Gubser, PRD74 (2006) J Friess, et al., PRD75 (2007) • Similar to Bethe-Heitler • dpT/dt ~ -(T3/Mq2) pT • Very different from usual pQCD and LPM • dpT/dt ~ -LT3 log(pT/Mq) ECT*
Failure of LO AdS for Heavy High-pT • Constrained by RHIC, oversuppresses LHC RHIC LHC ALICE 0-20% D ( ( ( ( ] ( WAH, PANIC11 (arXiv:1108.5876) ALICE, JHEP 1209 (2012) WAH, PhD Thesis, arXiv:1011.4316 ECT*
Light Flavor String Setup • Use MathematicaNDSolve • Difficult to solve EOM from NG action for full string • Use Polyakov action, worldsheet metric to facilitate numerics • Need to nontrivially invert t(t, s), x(t, s) to find relevant E, p, etc. as fcns of t or x Chesler, Jensen, Karch, Yaffe, PRD79 (2009) 125015 ECT*
Improved AdS Jet Prescription? • All approximations to a full Tmn calc. • Original jet defined by spatial proximity • New suggestion: separation by E scale Jet Medium Jet 500 MeV Medium R Morad and WAH, JHEP 11 (2014) 017 Chesler et al., PRD79 (2009) 0.3/pT ECT*
AdS: No-nucleus Suppression • Original proposed IC => anomalous vacuum suppression! • Suggests oversuppression artifact of string IC VacuumRpp << 1!! R Morad and WAH, JHEP 11 (2014) 017 ECT*
Renormalized Result • Can we capture diff. btwn. naïve AdSpp & AA? • Define renormalized RAdS = “RAA / Rpp”; cf CMS • Use reasonable l = 12 <=> as = 0.3: no fitting • Similar results for renorm. via DErenorm = DEAA - DEpp Very first, fully strongly coupled jet RAA calculation R Morad and WAH, JHEP 11 (2014) 017 ECT*
Limits on Heavy Flavor AdS Setup x5 “z” • For LO AdS: • Space-like quark endpoint • gcrit = (1 + 2Mq/l1/2 T)2 ~ 4Mq2/(lT2) • Mom. Loss Fluctuations • gcrit = Mq2/(4T2) • Speed limit from fluct parametrically larger, but numerically smaller D7 Probe Brane Q Worldsheet boundary Spacelikeif g > gcrit Trailing String “Brachistochrone” D3 Black Brane ECT*
HQ pT Limits RHIC LHC gcrit = Mc2 / 4 T02 ~ 3 – 4 GeV/c ALICE 0-20% D gcrit = Mc2 / 4 T02 ~ 3 – 4 GeV/c ( ( ( ( ] ( WAH, PANIC11 (arXiv:1108.5876) ALICE, JHEP 1209 (2012) WAH, PhD Thesis, arXiv:1011.4316 ECT*
Including Fluctuations in AdS HF • Obeys Einstein’s relations only at v = 0 • Multiplicative Langevin problem! • Results depend on time within timestep kicks are evaluated • Ito, Stratonovich, Hänggi-Klimontovich • Non-Markovian: • Colored (not white) noise • Momentum kicks have a memory Gubser, NPB790 (2008) Teaney and Casalderrey-Solana, JHEP 0912 (2009) 066 ECT*
Discretizing Langevin • Discretizing Riemann Calculus trivial • Sum converges regardless of bin widths and x* in bin as n increases • Ambiguity in Ito Calculus • Results depend on discretization procedure See, e.g., He et al., PRE 88, 032138 (2013) ECT*
Discretization Ambiguity and Einstein • Ex: momentum space distribution of charm • AdS fluctuations very diff from fluc-diss, which lead to relativistic thermal (Jüttner) distribution • Huge diff btwn pre-point and mid-point v = 0.9c in z-direction WAH, 1501.04693 ECT*
Resolving the Ambiguity • Saved by colored noise: • Wong-Zakai Theorem: • As autocorrelation => 0, Langevin => Stratonovich Gubser, NPB790 (2008) ECT*
Model Calculations • Input FONLL c, b production spectra • Discretized Langevin through VISHNU • 2+1D viscous hydro (Shen et al., 1409.8164) • FONLL FFs to B, D, e • Uncertainty in map from QCD to N = 4 SYM • Explore systematics with two reasonable assumptions • as = 0.3 (l = 12), TSYM = TQCD • l = 5.5, TSYM = TQCD/31/4 • NB: no hadronicrescattering, shadowing ECT*
Details of Numerics • Langevin written in C++ • Two speed advantages: • Fast RNG generation • Fast access to hydro background (tables in HDF5) • Power law production spectrum => many runs • One may translate between equivalent Ito, Stratanovich, etc. pictures • Actual evaluation in Ito equivalent to Stratanovich • RNG via Numerical Recipes • NB: write own RNG, seeding function • Fragmentation performed in Mathematica • See arXiv:1501.04693 for details ECT*
Compare to RHIC HF Electrons • Agreement in sweet spot pT ~ 3 – 4 GeV/c • Below 3 GeV production unreliable • Above 4 GeV theory corrections necessary (col. noise,non-const p) • NB: VISHNU medium hotter than from previous calc => larger LO supp. WAH, 1501.04693 ECT*
Compare to LHC ECT* WAH, arXiv:1501.04693
Conclusions and Discussion • LO pQCD E-Loss qualitatively describes multiple observables • Future work: • check self-consistency (coupling) • reduce approximations • compare to additional tomographic observables • Soft physics? • AdS/CFT E-loss also qualitatively describes multiple observables • Future work: • Improve fluc + high-E in HQ, connection to light flavor • Distinguishing Measurements: • Fluctuations destroy double ratio • High-pT B RAA; correlations? Nicole Moodley Robert Moerman ECT*