170 likes | 180 Views
Analysis of energy density in LHC P+P collisions, including acceleration effects, corrections, and implications for Quark-Gluon Plasma. Research references and uncertainty assessments presented. Comparison with RHIC data for further insight.
E N D
ZIMÁNYI SCHOOL 2013 December 2-6. Budapest, Hungary INITIAL energydensityin LHC P+Pcollisions M. Csanád &T. Csörgő 02 Dec2013
The Bjorken-estimate • The original idea: energydensitybasedondE/dy • QGP criticale: 1 GeV/fm3 (fromec=6-8Tc4) • Result (~2000x cited) • Needscorrection! • Ref.: Phys.Rev. D27 (1983)
An advancedestimate • Fact: dn/dynotflat • Finiteness & acceleration • Analyticalinvestigation: • Accelerationparameterl • Twomodifications: • yh & hfinal hinitial • Workbyacceleration! • Correctionw.r.t. EoS: E.g.: J.Phys.G35 (2008) 104128 (arXiv:0805.1562)
Initialenergydensityat LHC • RoughestimatepossibleviatheBjorken formula • Number of particlesatmidrapidity: 5.89 (CMS, ALICE) • Averageenergy: mt=0.562 GeV (CMS) • Initialradius of thesystem R: ~1.081 fm (TOTEM, sinel) • Formationtimet0: 1 fm/c (conservativeestimate) • Energydensityfromthis: • Justbelowcritical? Importantquestion!
Correctionfrominitialacceleration • Initialaccelerationpushesoutervolumeelements • Thismodifiesthedn/dhdistribution • Estimateaccelerationfromit! • l = 1: no acceleration • TOTEM fit: l = 1.0730.0010.004 • WithoutEoS: 20%
TOTEM & CMS datacombined (7 TeV) • Fit results: • TOTEM: • CMS: • Jointdata: • Normalization OK? • Singlediffractive vs. non-singlediffractive? • Lambdadoesnot changesignificantly
Comment: dn/dh @ 7 TeV is nottrivial • Nottrivialfor MC models • TOTEM Coll., EPL, 98 (2012) 31002
Preliminaryresultson 8 TeV • CMS vs. TOTEM normalizationnottrivial • Both datasetsdescribableby • Joint fit: • Data arenot final • Systematic analysiscoming
Dependenceonparticlenumber • Severalmultiplicityclasses, 6-20, even 30 seen!
Initialtemperatureestimate • Temperaturefrome~T4
Systematicuncertainties • Allsources of uncertainties: • Conclusionat 7 TeV: • eini= (1.14 0.01(syst) +0.21-0.16 (syst)) GeV/fm3
Is itunprecedented? Consequences? • Bjorken and Landau worked out hydro for pp and pA • Success of hydro to describe h+p, with <n> = 7-8... Phys.Lett. B422 (1998) 359-368 • Bjorken: it is not hadrons that play billiard balling • If p+p is a complexsystem: • Gamma/pi0 ratio • Radialflow • Elliptic flow,scaling • HBT radii,scaling • Lowmassdileptonenhancement • Directphotonenhancement • RAAmightnot be thebestmeasure: dividebylengthscale?
Summary • ExperimentallywidelyusedBjorken est. at 7 TeV • Advanced estimate: accelerationwork, fromdn/dh • Resultsontheinitialefor cs2=0.1, attf/tini=2 • From TOTEM data: eini= (1.14 0.01 0.2) GeV/fm3 • ThisatdN/dy=6 & linearlyriseswithmultiplicity! • Criticalenergydensity: 1 GeV/fm3 • Resultsnotincompatiblewithsupercrit. sQGP phase
Initialenergydensityat RHIC • Bjorkenestimatefrom BRAHMS: 5 GeV/fm3 • Advanced estimategives: • Correction: 2-3x, result 15 GeV/fm3, QCD agreement! • Correspondsto Tini 2Tc 340 MeV • Confirmedbyphotonspectraat PHENIX, published 2010 • Referencee.g.: J.Phys.G35 (2008) 104128 (arXiv:0805.1562)
A solution of relativistichydro • Velocity: tanh(lh) • Acceleration: l1 • Density: (t/t0)l • dn/dycalculable! • Comparethisto RHIC data! • dn/dymeasurementyieldsadvancedinitialeestimate • Significantcorrectionat RHIC! • Reference: Phys.Lett. B663 (2008) 306-311 (nucl-th/0605070)
Advanced estimateat 7 TeV • Fit result: l=1.073 • Conservatively: cs2=0.1 • ~25% correction • Input parameters: • dN/dyatmidrap.: 5.89 • Averagemt: 0.562 GeV • Area: 3.67 fm2 • Fromcrosssections • Freeze-outtime / form. time: atleast 2 • Bjorkenresult: 0.90 Gev/fm3 • Correctedresult: 1.14 GeV/fm3
Sources of uncertainties • Forthecorrectionfactore/eBj: • Fit parameterl • Statisticalerror (fromthedata) • Speed of sound cs2 • Durationtf/ti • FortheoriginalBjorken-estimate: • Main uncertaintysource: multiplicityatmidrapiditydN/dy • Area (iftakenfromcross-section): veryprecise • Formationtime • Averagetransversemass