1 / 48

Experimental Priorities in A+A

Experimental Priorities in A+A. (MG 15.05.2004 @ RBRC Discoveries at RHIC Workshop). Y=+- 3 test interplay QGP<->CGC ? C 2 (phi 1 ,phi 2 , pt 1 ,pt 2 , eta 1 ,eta 2 ; fl 1 ,fl 2 , Mult, A,B, Ecm) Heavy Quark tomography Open Charm (enhancement?); J/Psi (suppression?)

elroy
Download Presentation

Experimental Priorities in A+A

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. Experimental Priorities in A+A (MG 15.05.2004 @ RBRC Discoveries at RHIC Workshop) • Y=+- 3 test interplay QGP<->CGC ? • C2(phi1,phi2, pt1,pt2, eta1,eta2; fl1,fl2, Mult, A,B, Ecm) • Heavy Quark tomography • Open Charm (enhancement?); J/Psi (suppression?) • Charm Flow? • Direct Photons thermometer • Tagged direct photon -quark jets! • Turn Ecm~20-200 and A=1-100 exp. knobs exp. knobs 6D microscope

  2. (intermediate) ^ Physics of high pT Correlations in A+A Miklaz Gyulassy ITP/FIAS/GSI May 19, 2008 • Why Single Inclusive remains Inconclusive • Hints of “Mach Cone” minijet correlations • and YIAM unhappy with ZYAM • 3. Astrophysical Jets and correlation lessons • 4. Three dynamics scenarios to trace the • Head + Neck + Plume + Machwake • away side jet correlation problem in A+A • 1. Rischke Bow shocks • 2. Anti de Sitter space gmn shocks • 3. Space-like elastic shocks

  3. Why Inclusive jet tomography is still Inconclusive Both c+b c only Electron data seems to falsify pQCD HQ dynamics unless b production is suppressed (i.e. RHIC is charming but not beautiful)

  4. Away side jet correlations and ZYAM Mach Cone? With an reasonable but untested assumption that the tiny 1% correlations observed arise from the sum of only two terms 1) Elliptic flow and 2) Jet-medium And the assumption that there exists an angle where 2 vanishes ZYAM PHENIX Is this a real Mach Cone or an Experimental artifact or perhaps another dynamic source, e.g. radial flow ? S.Padre, TX

  5. J.W. Goethe Tests of ZYAM prescription Stefan Kniege

  6. Mapping out the jet correlation landscape: A Perspective from PHENIX experiment. Jiang-yong Jia Int.J.Mod.Phys.E16:3058,2008 1) Two component Model 2) Fit a0: CAB(fmin)=0 • [MG] Why is broad away side correlation so weakly dependent on beam energy? • Bulk elliptic flow is much less perfect at SPS • True high pT pQCD jet physics is suppressed at SPS kinematics • The minijet pt< 3 GeV range is swamped by non-jet semi-soft coalesence

  7. Fuqiang Wang, Quark Matter 2004 STAR Preliminary Fit to near side: const. + gaussian + Borghini-cos(fixed) p+p Au+Au 5% free fit (1/Ntrig) dN/d(Df) stat. mom. conserv.Borghini et al. stat. mom. conserv.Borghini et al. Df Df A thermal fluctuated large pT particle (or a mono-jet) would produce an away side excess due to momentum conservation. • near side is mostly a jet, and initially no mono-jet at mid-rapidity. • the final state away excess has a similar shape to a stat. distr. from momentum conservation. • the away side excess approaches equilibration with the medium, consistent with the pT spectra results.

  8. I am unhappy with ZYAM (assumed Zero Yield At Minimum) Because 1% errors on the magnitude of an assumed independent “Background” (The sQGP signal !!) produces a factor of 2 variation of the azimuthal correlations shape relative to a flat C(Df) near Df=p The “Mach” signal is tiny ~ 1% in correlation func Systematic errors need To be much better controlled Recent progress by McCumber (PHENIX) is an attempt to measure background level, but even then the Assumption of two independent Jet+QGP sources is dubious

  9. II: Basic Physics of Jet induced Mach Cone and other dynamical correlations 3) Nuclear Mach cones 4) Astrophysical Mach Cones

  10. p/2-qM H. Stoecker From Nuclear Mach Cone Theory 1973 To RHIC Discoveries 2004 :nucl-th/0406018 Bow shock of compressed matter Cos qM=vs/v Any supersonic probe Leads to a Mach-wake Correlation component (But also to probe dependent other components e.g. bow shocks if probe is compressible)

  11. Primary Mach Wake 2nd Mach Shear Cocoon Bow Shock Beam “Plume” Head

  12. ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI AND INTERGALACTIC JETS http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/hydrodynamics_realm/index.html

  13. Toy model of conical flow induced by heavy-quark jets F. Antinori, E.V. Shuryak, J.Phys.G31:L19,2005. NonHydro Head cst Trigger Jet Sound “Mach Wake” “Diffusion Plume” Observed Angular and spectral distribution Is a superposition dN/dhdpTdf = Mach wake + Diffusion Plume + + Flowing Bulk sQGP + Jet Head + Neck Casaderrey-S, Teaney, Shuryak hep-ph/0602183 Head /Neck J.Noronha, B. Betz, G. Torrieri, MG (08)

  14. My Texas Red Neck Model of Soft Headed Mach Cones Soft Head ! Red Neck Unlike Hard Bullets ! Mach Angle = Diffusion Plume http://www.thechickenfishspeaks.com/Photos/fashion%20fun-Red%20Neck.jpg

  15. Part III Dynamic Models of Mach + Head Correlations • 1) Perfect Fluids sourced by dE/dx and dP/dx • (Betz, et al QM08) • 2) g2Nc/4p >> 1 AdS predicts Mach wakes • are filled if Neck+Head are Cooper-Fryed • (Noronha,Betz,Torieri,MG) • 3) g2Nc/4p << 1pQCD jet Radiative energy loss • also predicts no large angle Mach (Vitev) • Even space-like elastic en-mom loss is • dominated by forward Head freezeout • ?) Could Machs be radial flow deflected tangent jets? • (Pruneau,Voloshin,Gavin)

  16. Betz, et al QM08 Jet Induced correlations in Ideal Relativistic Hydro Loss scenarios No Bow Shock ! Bow Shock Dropped pebbles model Radiative or Elastic En~Mom

  17. DE ~ DPz Confirms that non Mach wake sources (Plume+Neck+head) dominate Correlation pattern pTobs=4 GeV Only for

  18. Mach Cones in infinite coupled SYM Plasmas via the AdS/CFT conjecture Heavy Quark String Drag Picture You are here X Ulery QM08 Inside BH Head Neck 2006- Herzog et al Gubser et al Yaffe et al

  19. The Gubser,Pufu,Yarom AdS drag numerical solution l=5.5 l=6p For “realistic” parameters AdS/String Mach+Diffusion wake disturbance remains small ~10% relative to “background” SYM Except in Head+Neck Dr < 2/pT Bow Shock zone region

  20. Flow velocity field is also small Dv < 0.1 even for vQ=0.9c Except in Head +Neck region Bow Shock Only Head region has v>0.1

  21. Near Zone Navier-Stokes Analysis of Heavy Quark Jet Quenching in an N =4 SYM Jorge Noronha, Giorgio Torrieri, MG, hep-ph 0712.1053 Use Yarom’s analytic near field solution to investigate the breakdown of Navier Stokes. Conclusion:“Head Zone” |Dx| < 2/pT ~ 0.5 fmis nonthermal ! K(x1,r) Vjet=0.99 c Knudsen number r =xT/ pT x1=(x-vt)/pT Pressure Anisotropy Px/Pz

  22. Acausality for Short wavelength l< 0.5 /T Kc~11 T

  23. To convert AdS Tmn(x) stress information into Hadron angular and spectral intensities We used full numerical AdS solution of Gubser, Pufu, Yarom (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.4307) with Causal and Head cuts Causal cut De/e0 Head/Neck cut Plume cut RH In AdS ~ static SYM plasma assume an isochronous freeze-out

  24. T=200 T=250 T=300 • Even Mach wake leads to no dip • Due to thermal smearing !! • 2) All AdS azimuthal “machlike” signal • comes from Head+Neck regions • where local equilib is however • unjustified !!

  25. Sensitivity of Head Dip to its Boundary definition RHead=1.0 /pT0 RHead=0.5 /pT0 Quantitative prediction for pT dependence of Mach like correlation structure requires nonequilibrium Dynamical modeling beyond scope of Dissipative Hydro e.g. via detailed radiative, elastic parton transport (Zhu+Greiner)

  26. Part N+1: Non-Mach wake azimuthal dip mechnisms Radial flow induced tangent jet deflections AMPT elastic parton correlations

  27. Transverse Radial Flow Effects on Two- and Three-Particle Angular Correlations Claude A. Pruneau, Sean Gavin , and Sergei A. Voloshi FIG. 2: (Color online) Two-particle azimuthal correlations obtained with a di-jet toy model assuming Gaussian azimuthal profile and flat radial boost profiles - described in the text.

  28. AMPT Transport ZPC/ART Sensitivity To Hadronization + Hadrotransport (Non CFT) Generic theory problem: D.Molnar,MG (NPA697,2002) Transport models that get v2 right Underpredict RAA and pT tails .2 v2 RAA 1

  29. Summary: 1) High pT correlations provide a very important sensitive test of the micro dynamics that is however complex to deconvolute 2) Current hydrodynamic, String drag model, radiative and elastic energy loss models proposed to explain the data are still inadequate and need substantial further refinement. 3) Alternate simpler explanation like radial flow should be investigated by professional transport codes (Molnar, Xu+Greiner) 4) Three particles should be tackled only after the two particles without ZYAM are under control

  30. AdS/CFT Drag assumes: SYM plasma QCD plasma ~ 15 ~ 30 0.15

  31. Recent Advances in 2nd order AdS/Hydro

  32. Generically, such a metric (we will denote it by g(0)(b(xμ), βi(xμ)) is not a solution to Einstein’s equations. if all derivatives of the parameters b(xμ) and βi(xμ) are small, is locally well approximated by a boosted black brane. Local boosted black brane metric solves Einstein provided the functions b(xμ) and βi(xμ) obey a set of equations of motion, which turn out simply to be the equations of boundary fluid dynamics The expansion parameter is 1/LT where L is the scale of gradients of the parameters and T is the Hawking Temperature of the Black Brane

  33. Conclusions: • Mach Cones or Away Side Dips are very generic • phenomena, but interpretation in AA is nontrivial due to • Multi-source (nonZYAM) contributions to azimuthal yields • Yield(Df)= Mach+Plume+Neck+Head+sQGP • 2) AdS/CFT is most sophisticated beyond-hydro dynamical • Model that features all the above in one self consistent framework • 3) Unfortunately, most of the interesting azimuthal signal • is generated by the non-equilibrium • Neck + Head Dr < 2/pT region !! • 4) Other , e.g. Radial + Longitudinal Flow, effects may actually • dominate signals of tiny 2 and 3 particle associated observables

  34. Cooper-Fryeing AdS/CFT Stress for azimuthal correlations (BNTG08) Goal:Separate into 1) Mach (r > 3/pT , x1< - 3/pT) 2) Diffusion Plume (r < 3/pT , x1< - 3/pT) 3) Head Components Input GPY Temp Field For l=5.5 Nc=3 T0=300 Note DT ~ 5 MeV Outside Nonequilib Head Head GPY Flow v Field For l=5.5 Nc=3 T0=300 Note Dv ~ 0.05 c Outside Head Head

  35. In rigorous Nc =Infinity , stress perturbation is very very small and Linearized Navier Stokes hydro is ok, BUT at the phenomenological price of Negligible signal strength !!! We use “realistic” l=5.5 and Nc=3 to get estimates Damped sound Transverse Diffusion

  36. Cole QM05 PHENIX: Reaction Plane Angle Dependence(2) Look in bin #4 • For PHENIX reaction plane resolution & chosen bin sizes, trig bin 4 has smallest flow effects. • Even without subtracting flow contribution, a dip is seen for central collisions. PHENIX Preliminary

  37. Ajitanand HP06, IWCF’06 Ajitanand QM08 Poster 243 * Projections v2 subtracted 2-particle dominated 2-particle dominated v2 and 2-particle subtracted Deflected Mach-cone PHENIX PRL 97, 052301 (2006) PHENIX Results J.Ulery QM08, sld 16 • 3-particle/2-particle ~ 1/3, very large • Residual background? v2 subtracted Au+Au 10-20% • Shape consistent with simulated mach-cone.

  38. Momentum conservation and correlation analyses in heavy-ion collisions at ultrarelativistic energies. Nicolas Borghini Phys.Rev.C75:021904,2007. the mere notion of there being “an underlying event over which the jet develops” is incorrect. The jet does distort the event to which it belongs, it is not merely embedded in it as is done in many simulations. It is a quantitative question Just how deep is the induced Mom conservation dip

  39. Cole QM05 From Poster by J. Jia trig ? PHENIX: Reaction Plane Angle Dependence • Study (di)jet correlations vs angle of trigger hadron relative to reaction plane • J. Bielcikova et al, Phys. Rev. C69:021901, 2004 • trig = trig -  • 6 bins from 0 to /2. • Flow systematics change completely vs trig • Can study dependence of distortion on geometry. • Shoulder and dip seen in all trig bins.

  40. Jet- Fluid Coupling Mechanisms Jet En-Mom Source for associated hydro evolution: Depostion/thermaliztion process An integral constraint on Jm : The source is not unique and depends onnon-equilibrium transport dynamicsoutside hydro framework ANY Function with zero integral ! + Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Non-isentropic excitations: the main excitation mechanism is entropy production and the flow field introduces vorticity. Isentropic excitations: No entropy production. Medium excitation by sound wave emission.. Jorge Casalderrey-Solana QM06

  41. The Non Isentropic Scenario gives No Mach after Cooper-Frying dN/dydDf Diffuson  flow along jet direction No Mach angle correlation p Df Chaudhuri & Heinz: No luck either with their IC guesses This most natural Jet source pushes more fluid matter forward than to the side! A bummer. Jorge Casalderrey-Solana QM06

  42. Scenario II: Isentropic Jet Source For Static Medium need Large dE/dx12 Gev/fm Expanding medium need Only dE/dx1.5 Gev/fm dN/dydDf (dilution of the medium) The correlations develops as passocT increases Df The tiny magnitude of the correlation decreases exponentially. Can be engineered to produce a Mach-like Dip At Df=p for high pt associated similar to data

  43. Try Jet Shock Heating or Pebble Dropping (see also B. Betz talk) Scenario 4: Scenario 3: 1 Fluid Jet Shock +Medium Pebbles Dr=1.6 fm dropped in Medium Engineered “Mach Cone” (T0=338 MeV) From the Frankfurt Hydro Club: B. Betz, G. Torrieri, E. Molnar , …, MG Both scenarios again look promising for Jet Mach Cone production, but …

  44. Entropy Producing Jet shock heating Jet pebbles dropped into sQGP pond Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Pre-Cooper-Frye Pre-Cooper-Frye Finally A Mach cone cs p=40 p=40 Cooper-Fryed Cooper-Fryed 30 30 20 No hint Of Mach! Mach-ish But not cs ! Cos q Cos q

More Related