1 / 25

Dan Magestro The Ohio State University for the STAR Collaboration

HBT relative to the reaction plane at RHIC. Where we stand after Year-1 Motivation for HBT( ) Centrality & k T dependence @ 200 GeV Model discussion Source geometry at freeze-out. Dan Magestro The Ohio State University for the STAR Collaboration.

nevin
Download Presentation

Dan Magestro The Ohio State University for the STAR Collaboration

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. HBT relative to the reaction plane at RHIC • Where we stand after Year-1 • Motivation for HBT() • Centrality & kT dependence @ 200 GeV • Model discussion • Source geometry at freeze-out Dan MagestroThe Ohio State Universityfor the STAR Collaboration

  2. The role of HBT at a "transverse dynamics" workshop • Bose-Einstein p correlations  disentangle STE • Goal: quantify contributions to space-time evolution (STE) of system Lifetime and duration of emission Spatial extent of system Collective flow at thermal freeze-out • Single-particle pT spectra & v2 signal also determined by STE, but... Pairs of pions experience B-E correlations Hanbury Brown–Twiss interferometry: characterize correlations Width of correlation peak as q0 reflects "length of homogeneity" static source: HBT radii ↔ true geometrical size of system dynamic source: HBT radii ↔ flow reduces observed radii  pT dependence of HBT related to collective expansion (pair relative momentum)

  3. Review of RHIC Year 1 (s=130 GeV) Heinz & Kolb, hep-ph/0111075 momentum spectra Hydrodynamics • Successfully reproduces p-space of source elliptic flow Heinz & Kolb, hep-ph/0204061

  4. Review of RHIC Year 1 (s=130 GeV) hydro only hydro+hadronic rescatt STAR PHENIX Hydrodynamics • Fails to predict spatial structure of source "HBT Puzzle" Heinz & Kolb, hep-ph/0111075 Soff, Bass, Dumitru • Including hadronic rescattering makes it worse

  5. Why study HBT()? later hadronic stage? beam into screen x b • Standard HBT provides direct access to space-time (size) information about source, "HBT radii" • Additionally, HBT() provides direct access to shape and orientation of source • Source shape+size at freeze-out evolution, expansion rateHow much of initial spatial deformation still exists at freeze-out? • Big question: What is the time scale of the collision? collective expansion of system Heinz & Kolb, Nucl.Phys. A702 (2002) 269-280

  6. HBT() predictions from hydrodynamics later hadronic stage? in-plane-extended out-of-plane-extended • Hydrodynamics: initial out-of-plane anisotropy may become in-plane kT dependence Heinz & Kolb, Nucl.Phys. A702 (2002) 269-280 Teaney, Lauret, & Shuryak, nucl-th/0110037

  7. The HBT() experimental technique beam into screen x b fp=90° Rside (small) Rside (large) • Oscillations of radii w.r.t. RP indicate if source is in-plane or out-of-plane extended fP=0° • Study (transverse) source at different angles by performing two-pion interferometry separately for bins w.r.t reaction plane reactionplane • Apply HBT formalism to extract "HBT radii" for each bin

  8. Watered-down HBT()  What we measure  What we expect to see: HBT radii as a function of emission angle 2nd-order oscillations in HBT radii analogous to v2 Rside2 reactionplane  Why we're interested  What should be remembered The size and orientation of the source at freeze-out places tight constraints on expansion/evolution At finite kT, we don't measure the entire source size. We measure "regions of homogeneity" and relating this to the full source size requires a model dependence. qlong qside qout

  9. Blast-wave applied to HBT(), 130 GeV fp=90° Rside (small) Rside (large) fP=0°  • Minimum bias data (inclusive ) • Oscillations indicate out-of-plane extended source • Blast-wave describes oscillations well Ry=11.7 fm, s2=0.037, T=100 MeV, a=0.037, 0=0.9, askin=0.001 STAR preliminary out side long out-side

  10. Consistent picture of RHIC Year-1 (s=130 GeV) "Extended" blast wave1 • Parametrization of freeze-out, works for v2, mT spectra, source geometry, and K- HBT • Consistent set of parameters describes several observables K- correlations HBT radii elliptic flow 1F. Retiere, nucl-ex/0111013

  11. Extending the HBT() systematics • 130 GeV: minimum-bias analysis • Out-of-plane extended source, consistency with blast-wave • 200 GeV: ~10x more statistics  study systematics of HBT() • Centrality dependenceStudy source deformity at freeze-out in context of initial shape - geometry • kT dependenceStudy different scenarios of pair emission – geometry/dynamics Warning: This is a very systematic analysis!

  12. Corrections applied to data Bowler/Sinyukov Coulomb correctionModifies fit function, leads to systematic increase in Rout RP resolution correction1 (Heinz et al)Applies bin-by-bin corrections to Num's and Den's of correlation functions Average lambda parameter for each centrality/kT binRemoves effects due to non-ideal behavior of fit function +, - HBT parameters averagedImproves statistics; data consistent within errors 1 Heinz, Hummel, Lisa, Wiedemann, PRC 66 (2002) 044903

  13. Effect of new Coulomb correction, "standard" HBT STAR, QM01; NPA698, 177c (2002) f CERES Coll. NPA 714 (2002) 124 • More correct CC method of Bowler (’91) & Sinyukov (’98), used by CERES (’02) • Similar effect on radii as dilution with f =  “Standard” Coulomb CC No Coulomb CC • RHIC analyses used “standard” Coulomb correction, used by previous experiments • “apples-to-apples” extension of systematics • Effects of “diluting” CC (resonances, etc) explored & reported @ QM01 • Ro affected most • Y2 data: dilution effect vs pT, centrality • RO/RS ~ 10-15% increase when f =  ≈ 0.5 In “right” direction, but does not solve RO/RS problem

  14. Centrality dependence of HBT() STAR preliminary • 12 -bin analysis (0.15 < kT < 0.65) • 15° bins, 72 CF's total12 bins × 3 centrality bins × 2 pion signs • Lines are fits to allowed oscillations • Oscillations exist in transverse radii for all bins • Amplitudes weakest for 0-10% (expected) • No higher-order oscillations observed out, side, long go as cos(2) out-side goes as sin(2)

  15. kT dependence of HBT() STAR preliminary • 4 -bin, 4 kT-bin analysis • 96 simultaneous CF's4 bins (45° wide)× 4 kT bins × 3 centrality bins × 2 pion signs • Oscillations exist in transverse radii for all kT bins To put this in perspective, the 130 GeV STAR HBT paper had 3 CF's per trend (centrality, pt) 10-30% events

  16. Data summary: Fourier coefficients HBT() summary plot • Data points are Fourier coefficients of oscillations Ri,02 =  Ri2()/Nbins Ri,22 =  Ri2()osc(2)/Nbins i=o,s,l: osc = cosi=os: osc = sin • All data consistent with out-of-plane extended sources • Weak kT dependence STAR preliminary

  17. Hydro predictions of HBT() • RHIC (T0=340 MeV @ t0=0.6 fm) • Initialize with central data, adjust geometry only • Out-of-plane-extended source (but flips with hadronic afterburner) • flow & geometry work together to produce HBT oscillations • oscillations stable with KT (note: RO/RS puzzle persists) Kolb & Heinz, Phys. Lett. B542 (2002) 216

  18. Hydro predictions of HBT() • RHIC (T0=340 MeV @ t0=0.6 fm) • Out-of-plane-extended source (but flips with hadronic afterburner) • flow & geometry work together to produce HBT oscillations • oscillations stable with KT • “LHC” (T0=2.0 GeV @ t0=0.1 fm) • In-plane-extended source (!) • HBT oscillations reflect competition between geometry, flow • low KT: geometry • high KT: flow sign flip Kolb & Heinz, Phys. Lett. B542 (2002) 216

  19. Comparison to Hydro • RHIC (T0=340 MeV @ t0=0.6 fm) • Out-of-plane-extended source (but flips with hadronic afterburner) • flow & geometry work together to produce HBT oscillations • oscillations stable with KT • “LHC”/IPES (T0=2.0 GeV @ t0=0.1 fm) • In-plane-extended source (!) • HBT oscillations reflect competition between geometry, flow • low KT: geometry • high KT: flow STAR preliminary sign flip

  20. Model-independent determination of source orientation?? kT dependence • Pairs at different kT emitted from different homogeneity regions High-kT – pairs emittedfrom small H.R. As kT0, pions emitted from entire source • We observe no strong kT dependence of oscillation amplitude in transverse HBT radii finite kT measurements roughly representative of whole source... • Case (b) requires some evolution of amplitude with kT • Extrapolate toward kT=0 (risky, but...) to look at entire source... • Model-independent determination of orientation of source!? Issue: Are we being "tricked" by measurement? (Voloshin, Heinz, Kolb, ...) (b) (a) vs. reactionplane reactionplane Can we discriminate between these two scenarios in a model-independent way?(well, these drawings are already kind of a model-dependent picture...)

  21. The Blast-wave parametrization momentum space T, 0, a x-space Rx, Ry time t, t 7 parameters: • Blast-wave: Hydro-inspired parameterization of freeze-out • Use Blast-wave to relate HBT() measurements to source shape & orientation RY RX F. Retiere and M.A. Lisa, in preparation

  22. Characterizing freeze-out shape relative to initial anisotropy Ry Rx Ry Rx other BW parameters kept fixedT=100 MeV, a=0.04, 0=0.9, askin=0.01 •  increases with b, indicates source is more out-of-plane extended Glauber   of initial geometry 30-70% HBT()  of final geometry 10-30% 0-10% STAR preliminary

  23. It didn't have to be this way... Ry Rx Ry Rx What would we have expected before doing the measurement? Evolution scenarios – schematic only • Hydrodynamic source with strong flow, long lifetime • Explosive source with weak flow, very short lifetime • Rescattering/RQMD source with long lifetime

  24. Relevance to gluon saturation picture • HBT(): Relates space-momentum correlations to reconstructed RP geometry does matter: saturation dead? • Or, can minijets account for HBT() signal as well (at least qualitatively)? • What can Color Glass / gluon saturation say about HBT? Transverse plane in K&T saturation scenario reconstruted reaction planeusing v2 HBT() showssensitivity to reconstructed RP! true reaction plane • Kovchegov and Tuchin1 reproduced differential elliptic flow data using minijets in a gluon saturation model • Consequence: reconstructed RP not related to real RP  particle & v2 production is independent of geometry Kovchegov and Tuchin, NPA 708 (2002) 413 1Kovchegov and Tuchin, Nucl. Phys. A 717 (2003) 249

  25. Conclusions • "Standard" HBT: Centrality and kT dependence • No significant change in radii from 130 GeV • Now: kT dependence of centrality dependence • Coulomb correction increases Rout ~10-15% • HBT puzzle persists... • HBT() @ 200 GeV: Centrality and kT dependence • Measurements consistent with out-of-plane extended sources • Short lifetime of source  not enough time for flow to significantly affect shape • Hydrodynamics: reproduces amplitudes qualitatively with RHIC realistic source • Blast-wave: effective tool to extract source aspect ratio • Very little kT dependence of amplitudes  model-independent determination of source orientation? • Does HBT() hurt the gluon saturation picture ??

More Related