1 / 80

Perfect Fluid QGP or CGC?

Perfect Fluid QGP or CGC?. Tetsufumi Hirano Institute of Physics, University of Tokyo. References: T.Hirano and M.Gyulassy, Nucl.Phys.A 769 (2006)71. T.Hirano, U.Heinz, D.Kharzeev, R.Lacey, Y.Nara, Phys.Lett.B 636 (2006)299; work in progress. Seminar@RCNP, 7/27/2006. OUTLINE.

howell
Download Presentation

Perfect Fluid QGP or CGC?

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. Perfect Fluid QGP or CGC? Tetsufumi Hirano Institute of Physics, University of Tokyo References: T.Hirano and M.Gyulassy, Nucl.Phys.A 769(2006)71. T.Hirano, U.Heinz, D.Kharzeev, R.Lacey, Y.Nara, Phys.Lett.B 636 (2006)299; work in progress. Seminar@RCNP, 7/27/2006

  2. OUTLINE • Introduction • Basic checks • Dynamical modeling in heavy ion collisions based on ideal hydrodynamics • Elliptic flow and perfect fluid • Results from hydro models • Dependence on freezeout prescription • Dependence on initialization • Summary and Outlook

  3. Introduction What is the matter where our building block plays a fundamental role? What is the origin of matter? Confinement Quark Gluon Plasma Matter Particle: quark Gauge Particle: gluon Dynamics : QCD Matter form : QGP Quarks, Leptons +Gauge particles

  4. Two Faces of QCD Strong coupling “constant” q-qbar potential F.Karsch and E.Laermann S. Eidelman et al. Color confinement Asymptotic freedom Low energy scale  High energy scale ???  perturbation  OK!

  5. QGP Recipe • Adding pressure  Pushing up chemical potential scale • Adding heat  Pushing up temperature scale

  6. QGP from 1st principle calculations • Critical temperature • Tc ~170MeV ~2x1012K ! • ec ~0.3-1.3GeV/fm3 • Rapid increase around Tc Karsch et al. Normalized temperature Stefan-Boltzmann law (energy density)∝(d.o.f.)x(temperature)4 Hadron phase(p): 3  QGP: 37 (color, flavor…)

  7. Matter Evolved with Our Universe QGP Hadronization Nucleosynthesis QGP study Understanding early universe

  8. Little Bang! Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider(2000-) RHIC as a time machine! front view STAR side view STAR Collision energy Multiple production Heat 100 GeV per nucleon Au(197×100)+Au(197×100)

  9. Physics of the QGP • Matter governed by QCD, not QED • High energy density/temperature frontier Toward an ultimate matter (Maximum energy density/temperature) • Reproduction of QGP in H.I.C. Reproduction of early universe on the Earth • Understanding the origin of matter which evolves with our universe

  10. BASIC CHECKSAS AN INTRODUCTION

  11. Basic Checks (I): Energy Density Bjorken energy density t: proper time y: rapidity R: effective transverse radius mT: transverse mass Bjorken(’83)

  12. Critical Energy Density from Lattice Stolen from Karsch(PANIC05).

  13. Centrality Dependence of Energy Density Well above ec from lattice in central collision at RHIC, if assuming t=1fm/c. ec from lattice PHENIX(’05)

  14. CAVEATS (I) • Just a necessary condition in the sense that temperature (or pressure) is not measured. (Just a firework?) • How to estimate tau? • If the system is thermalized, the actual energy density is larger due to pdV work. • Boost invariant? • Averaged over transverse area. Effect of thickness? How to estimate area? Gyulassy, Matsui(’84) Ruuskanen(’84)

  15. Basic Checks (II): Chemical Eq. direct Resonance decay Two fitting parameters: Tch, mB

  16. Amazing fit! T=177MeV, mB = 29 MeV Close to Tc from lattice

  17. CAVEATS (II) • Even e+e- or pp data can be fitted well! See, e.g., Becattini&Heinz(’97) • What is the meaning of fitting parameters? See, e.g., Rischke(’02),Koch(’03) • Why so close to Tc? • No chemical eq. in hadron phase!? • Essentially dynamical problem! Expansion rate  Scattering rate (Process dependent) see, e.g., U.Heinz, nucl-th/0407067

  18. Statistical Model Fitting to ee&pp Becattini&Heinz(’97) Phase space dominance? “T” prop to E/N? See, e.g., Rischke(’02),Koch(’03)

  19. Basic Checks (III): Radial Flow Blast wave model (thermal+boost) Driving force of flow: Inside: high pressure Outside: vacuum (p=0) pressure gradient Sollfrank et al.(’93) Spectrum for heavier particles is a good place to see radial flow.

  20. Spectrum change is seen in AA! Power law in pp & dAu Convex to Power law in Au+Au • “Consistent” with thermal + boost picture • Pressure can be built up in AA O.Barannikova, talk at QM05

  21. CAVEATS (III) • Finite radial flow even in pp collisions? • (T,vT)~(140MeV,0.2) • Is blast wave reliable quantitatively? • Not necessary to be thermalized completely • Results from hadronic cascade models. • How is radial flow generated dynamically? • Consistency? • Chi square minimum located a different point for f and W • Separate f.o. due to strong expansion. Time scale: micro sec. in early universe  10-23 (10 yocto) sec. in H.I.C. • Flow profile? Freezeout hypersurface? Sudden freezeout?

  22. Basic Checks  Necessary Conditions to Study QGP at RHIC • Energy density can be well above ec. • tau? thermalized? • “Temperature” can be extracted. (particle ratio) • e+e- and pp? Why freezeout happens so close to Tc • Pressure can be built up. (pT spectra) • Completely thermalized? Importance of Systematic Study based on Dynamical Framework

  23. Dynamics of Heavy Ion Collisions Freezeout “Re-confinement” Expansion, cooling Thermalization First contact (two bunches of gluons) Temperature scale 100MeV~1012K Time scale 10fm/c~10-23sec

  24. Why Hydrodynamics? • Static • EoS from Lattice QCD • Finite T, m field theory • Critical phenomena • Chiral property of hadron Once one accepts local thermalization ansatz, life becomes very easy. Energy-momentum: Conserved number: • Dynamic Phenomena in HIC • Expansion, Flow • Space-time evolution of • thermodynamic variables

  25. Three Inputs for Hydrodynamic Models Final stage: Free streaming particles  Need decoupling prescription t Intermediate stage: Hydrodynamics can be valid as far as local thermalization is achieved.  Need EoS P(e,n) z • Initial stage: • Particle production, • pre-thermalization, instability? • Instead, initial conditions are put for hydro simulations. 0 Need modeling (1) EoS, (2) Initial cond., and (3) Decoupling

  26. Intermediate Stage: Equation of State Typical EoS in hydro models Lattice QCD simulations H: resonance gas(RG) Q: QGP+RG P.Kolb and U.Heinz(’03) F.Karsch et al. (’00) p=e/3 Recent lattice results at finite T Latent heat Lattice QCD predicts cross over phase transition. Nevertheless, energy density explosively increases in the vicinity of Tc.  Looks like 1st order.

  27. Initial Stage: Initial Condition Energy density distribution Transverse plane Reaction plane Parameterization/model-calculation to reproduce (dN/dh)/(Npart/2) and dN/dh

  28. Final Stage: Freezeout (1) Sudden freezeout (2) Transport of hadrons via Boltzman eq. (hybrid) T=Tf t t Hadron fluid QGP fluid QGP fluid z z 0 0 Continuum approximation no longer valid at the late stage Molecular dynamic approach for hadrons (p,K,p,…) At T=Tf, l=0 (ideal fluid)  l=infinity (free stream)

  29. Caveats on Hydrodynamic Results • Obviously, final results depend on • modeling of • Equation of state • Initial condition • Freezeout • So it is indispensable to check sensitivity • of conclusion to model assumptions and • try to reduce model parameters. • In this talk, I will cover 2 and 3.

  30. What is Elliptic Flow? Ollitrault (’92) How does the system respond to spatial anisotropy? No secondary interaction Hydro behavior y f x INPUT Spatial Anisotropy 2v2 Interaction among produced particles dN/df dN/df OUTPUT Momentum Anisotropy 0 f 2p 0 f 2p

  31. Elliptic Flow from a Kinetic Theory ideal hydro limit Zhang et al.(’99) View from collision axis Time evolution of v2 b = 7.5fm v2 • Gluons uniformly distributed • in the overlap region • dN/dy ~ 300 for b = 0 fm • Thermal distribution with • T = 500 MeV t(fm/c) generated through secondary collisions saturated in the early stage sensitive to cross section (~m.f.p.~viscosity) v2 is

  32. Basis of the Announcement STAR(’02) PHENIX(’03) response = (output)/(input) pT dependence and mass ordering Multiplicity dependence Hydro results: Huovinen, Kolb, Heinz,…

  33. Sensitivity to Different Assumptions in Early/Late Stages Initial Condition Freezeout

  34. Dependence on Freezeout Prescription T.Hirano and M.Gyulassy, Nucl.Phys.A 769(2006)71.

  35. Classification of Hydro Models Model CE: Kolb, Huovinen, Heinz, Hirano… Model PCE: Hirano, Teaney, Kolb… Model HC: Teaney, Shuryak, Bass, Dumitru, … T ~1 fm/c QGP phase Perfect Fluid of QGP Tc ~3 fm/c Chemical Equilibrium EOS Partial Chemical Equilibrium EOS Tch Hadronic Cascade Hadron phase Tth Tth ~10-15 fm/c t ideal hydrodynamics

  36. Chemically Frozen Hadron Phase • Statistical model • Tch>Tth • (conventional) hydro • Tch=Tth • No reproduction • of ratio and spectra • simultaneously Chemical parameters  particle ratio Thermal parameters pt spectra

  37. Nobody knows this fact… P.Huovinen, QM2002 proceedings

  38. Extension of Phase Diagram • Single Tf in hydro • Hydro works? • Both ratio and • spectra? Introduction of chemical potential for each hadron! mi

  39. v2(pT) for Different Freezeout Prescriptions 2000 (Heinz, Huovinen, Kolb…) Ideal hydro w/ chem.eq.hadrons 2002 (TH,Teaney,Kolb…) +Chemical freezeout 2002 (Teaney…) +Dissipation in hadron phase 2005 (BNL) “RHIC serves the perfect liquid.” 20-30% Why so different/similar?

  40. Differential Elliptic Flow Developsin the Hadron Phase? Kolb and Heinz(’04) Is v2(pT) really sensitive to the late dynamics? 100MeV T.H. and K.Tsuda (’02) 140MeV 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.6 0 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6 0 0.4 transverse momentum (GeV/c)

  41. Mean pT is the Key Generic feature! t t Slope of v2(pT) ~ v2/<pT> Response todecreasing Tth (or increasing t) v2 <pT> v2/<pT> CE PCE t

  42. Accidental Reproduction of v2(pT) v2(pT) v2(pT) At hadronization Chemical Eq. v2 v2 freezeout <pT> <pT> pT pT v2(pT) Chemical F.O. CE: increase CFO: decrease v2 <pT> pT

  43. Why <pT> behaves differently? Mean ET decreases due to pdV work • ETper particle increases • in chemical equilibrium. • This effect delays cooling of the system like a viscous fluid. • Chemical equilibrium imitates viscosity at the cost of particle yield!  Hydro+Cascade is the only model to reproduce v2(pT)!!! Chemical Freezeout MASS energy KINETIC energy Chemical Equilibrium For a more rigorous discussion, see TH and M.Gyulassy, NPA769(2006)71

  44. Ideal QGP Fluid + Dissipative Hadron Gas Models hydro cascade

  45. TH et al.(’05-) (CGC +)QGP Hydro+Hadronic Cascade Hadronic Corona (Cascade, JAM) t sQGP core (Full 3D Ideal Hydro) z 0 (Option) Color Glass Condensate

  46. v2(pT) for identified hadronsfrom QGP Hydro + Hadronic Cascade 20-30% Mass dependence is o.k. Note: First result was obtained by Teaney et al.

  47. v2(Npart) and v2(eta) Significant Hadronic Viscous Effects at Small Multiplicity!

  48. Viscosity and Entropy • Reynolds number Iso, Mori, Namiki (’59) R>>1 Perfect fluid where • 1+1D Bjorken flow Bjorken(’83) • Baym(’84)Hosoya,Kajantie(’85)Danielewicz,Gyulassy(’85)Gavin(’85)Akase et al.(’89)Kouno et al.(’90)… (Ideal) (Viscous) h: shear viscosity (MeV/fm2), s : entropy density (1/fm3) h/s is a good dimensionless measure (in the natural unit) to see viscous effects.

  49. Why QGP Fluid + Hadron Gas Works? h: shear viscosity, s : entropy density TH and Gyulassy (’06) Kovtun,Son,Starinets(’05) • Absolute value of viscosity • Its ratio to entropy density ! Rapid increase of entropy density can make hydro work at RHIC. Deconfinement Signal?!

More Related