1 / 35

Alexander Milov for the PHENIX collaboration June 17, 2004

dN ch /d η and dE T /d η at Mid-Rapidity from SIS to LHC. Alexander Milov for the PHENIX collaboration June 17, 2004. Outline. Apparatus, Measurements & Errors: PHENIX detector dN ch /d η and dE T /d η measurement in PHENIX

reeves
Download Presentation

Alexander Milov for the PHENIX collaboration June 17, 2004

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. dNch/dη and dET/dη at Mid-Rapidity from SIS to LHC Alexander Milov for the PHENIX collaboration June 17, 2004 Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  2. Outline. • Apparatus, Measurements & Errors: • PHENIX detector • dNch/dη and dET/dη measurement in PHENIX • Centrality & Trigger efficiency determination • Results: • PHENIX results • RHIC and lower energy results • Physics: • √sNN dependencies • Averaged <ET>/<Nch> • Centrality shape • Theoretical Models at Experimental Angle of View • Summary Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  3. Global observables: dNch/dη & dET/dη. • Collision framework: • Particle and energy densities • Freeze-out conditions • Experimental environment • How does it change with: • Incident energy • Collision centrality • Relative behavior • Test for Theoretical Models. • Looking at the collision as global may reveal things hidden in details. Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  4. Brazil University of São Paulo, São Paulo China Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing Peking University, Beijing France LPC, University de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand Dapnia, CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette IPN-Orsay, Universite Paris Sud, CNRS-IN2P3, Orsay LLR, Ecòle Polytechnique, CNRS-IN2P3, Palaiseau SUBATECH, Ecòle des Mines at Nantes, Nantes Germany University of Münster, Münster Hungary Central Research Institute for Physics (KFKI), Budapest Debrecen University, Debrecen Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest India Banaras Hindu University, Banaras Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay Israel Weizmann Institute, Rehovot Japan Center for Nuclear Study, University of Tokyo, Tokyo Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima KEK, Institute for High Energy Physics, Tsukuba Kyoto University, Kyoto Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki RIKEN, Institute for Physical and Chemical Research, Wako RIKEN-BNL Research Center, Upton, NY Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba Waseda University, Tokyo S. Korea Cyclotron Application Laboratory, KAERI, Seoul Kangnung National University, Kangnung Korea University, Seoul Myong Ji University, Yongin City System Electronics Laboratory, Seoul Nat. University, Seoul Yonsei University, Seoul Russia Institute of High Energy Physics, Protovino Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna Kurchatov Institute, Moscow PNPI, St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg St. Petersburg State Technical University, St. Petersburg Sweden Lund University, Lund 12 Countries; 58 Institutions; 480 Participants* USA Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY University of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA University of Colorado, Boulder, CO Columbia University, Nevis Laboratories, Irvington, NY Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Florida Technical University, Melbourne, FL Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL Iowa State University and Ames Laboratory, Ames, IA Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM Dept. of Chemistry, Stony Brook Univ., Stony Brook, NY Dept. Phys. and Astronomy, Stony Brook Univ., Stony Brook, NY Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN *as of January 2004 Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  5. PHENIX Detector. • Pad Chamber Detectors: • MWPC with binary pad readout • 2.5m and 5.0m from the IP • |η|< 0.35 Δφ = 900 • σφ= 1.4mrad (3.5mm PC1) • ση= 0.7×10-3 (1.7mm PC1) • Double Hit Resolution ~4cm • Electromagnetic Calorimeter: • Lead+Scintillator 18 X0 • 5.1m from the IP • |η|< 0.38 Δφ = 900 • σE= 8.1%/√E[GeV] ×2.1% • Beam-Beam Counters: • 64 Cherenkov Counters • 3.1<|η|< 3.9 Δφ = 3600 • σvertex= ~5mm (central) • σt= ~100 ps Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  6. Multiplicity analysis. • Counting tracks on statistical basis: • Combine all hits in PC1 to hits in PC3 • Project lines onto the plane through the beam pipe • Count tracks inside the acceptance • Subtract combinatorial background by event mixing. • Corrections: • Tracks outside acceptance and background subtraction 4.3%±1% • Inactive regions 15%±2.3% • Double hit resolution Hit losses 2×7% Background subtraction 3.6% of bkg Uncertainty (in central) ±3.6% • Particle in-flow and out-flow Low energy 10%±5.5% Higher energy 1% ±2% No Field Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  7. Transverse Energy analysis. • ET definition: • ET = E×sin(θ) • ET ≈ mT at Mid-Rapidity in C.M.S. • E is full E for leptons and mesons • E is E±m for (anti) baryons • EMCal energy scale: • Measures full energy of e± and γ (π0) • Slow hadrons are fully absorbed. • Relativistic hadrons leave M.I.P. peak • EMCal measures >75% of energy • Systematic errors: • Energy response 3.9%-4.7% • Noise in central: <0.5% in peripheral: 3.5%-6.% • In-flow and out-flow 3.0% AGS test RHIC data Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  8. Centrality and trigger analysis. Assumed Nch ~ Np Shape of η-profile Knowledge of Nch = f(Np) Np using Glauber Nch using Generator Nhits using Detector MC Np, Nc εtrigger Match to the data Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  9. Centrality and trigger using NBD. Shape of η-profile Knowledge of Nch = f(Np) Uncorrelated Nch production Use N.B. statistics Np using Glauber Nch using Generator Nhits using Detector MC Np, Nc εtrigger Match to the data Assumed Nch ~ Np Negative Binominal Distribution: is the statistics describing distribution of number of trials (n) which are necessary to get a number of successes, if the probability of success (μ) is known: P(n,,k) = (n + k) / ((k) n!)  (/k)n / (1 + /k)n+k where k is a N.B.D. parameter related to the width of the distribution  in a following way: (/)2 = 1/k + 1/ Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  10. d-Au example. Assumed Nch ~ Np & uncorrelated Nch production Np, Nc εtrigger Match to the data Use N.B. statistics Np using Glauber Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  11. Other examples: Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  12. Results: The distributions. PHENIX preliminary PHENIX preliminary • Only part of the acceptance shown • “Classical” Shape: Peak, Valley, Edge. • Centrality classes shown. • Edge might be modified due to acceptance limitation Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  13. Results: Centrality curves. PHENIX preliminary PHENIX preliminary • Consistent behavior for ET and Nch • Both increase with energy • Both show steady rise from peripheral to central Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  14. Results: Systematic errors. • Three types of errors • All plotted as 1 standard deviation • Statistical error: • Point-by-point error (<1%). In all points is smaller than the marker size. • Systematic errors: • Band (correlated) allow to tilt points within the limit of the band. In peripheral (~20%) due to trigger uncertainty. In central (~4%) are due to DHR of the detectors • Scaling (correlated) allow to shift curves up and down. • Total systematic error is a quadratic sum of two. It is shown with the bars. PHENIX preliminary Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  15. Results: Ratios at different energies. PHENIX preliminary PHENIX preliminary • R200/19.6 is larger for ET than for Nch • Both are flat within systematic errors • Both show steady rise with incident energy Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  16. Results: Ratios <ET>/<Nch>. • Ratio <ET>/<Nch> increases by ~20% from 19.6 GeV to 200 GeV and stays the same between 200 GeV and 130 GeV • Consistent with the average particle momentum increase between those two energies. • Ratio <ET>/<Nch> is independent of centrality • Still a puzzle. • Same freeze-out conditions? • Since trigger and centrality related uncertainties cancel out, the flatness of the curves is quite precise statement. PHENIX preliminary Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  17. Comparison to other RHIC results. • Spectacular agreement between all 4 RHIC experiments: • All measurements are absolutely independent (including human factor) besides similar approach of using Glauber model. • BRAHMS: Si + Scintillators • PHENIX: PC at 2.5m and 5m • PHOBOS: Si detectors • STAR: Tracking in magnetic field. • Would allow to calculate averaged values and reduce systematic errors PHENIX preliminary Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  18. Recalculation between systems. Illustration only • In C.M.S.: • At Mid-Rapidity: ET~mT • dET/dy ≈ 1.25 dET/dη • In Lab: • dmT/dy ≈ 1.25 dET/dy • dET/dy ≈ dET/dη • In C.M.S.: • dNch/dy ≈ 1.25 dNch/dη • In Lab: • dNch/dy ≈ 1.04 dNch/dη • Recalculation parameters are “rather” independent on energy • A systematic error of 5% is assigned to any recalculated value Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  19. Comparison to other SPS results. PHENIX preliminary PHENIX preliminary • Good agreement between PHENIX measurements at 19.6 GeV and SPS measurements at 17.2 GeV in both measured values. • SPS spread of the data is larger than RHIC, but the same averaging should be possible to reduce the systematic errors. Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  20. Comparison of SPS results. • At intermediate SPS energy the energy spread between points is relatively large. • Using weighted average and error scaling by S-factor (see PDG) • S=1 if χ2/n.d.f. < 1 • S=√χ2/n.d.f. if χ2/n.d.f. > 1 • At lower SPS energy the data spread is even larger, a higher quality data is highly desirable. • At AGS energy the Centrality curve is deduced from a combined data. Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  21. Comparison to other results. using PHENIX preliminary • Averaged SPS data at 17.2 GeV is in good agreement to averaged RHIC data at 19.6 GeV (expected difference ~4%) • There is a continuous set of measurements from AGS to RHIC data. • Data quality: The best we have, but not the best we want. Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  22. √sNN dependence. PHENIX preliminary PHENIX preliminary • PHENX suggested ln(sNN) at QM01 and it works well with better and larger data-set. • Both in ET and in Nch show log-scaling. • Works even better on Nch for Np = 350. Band on the right is 2σ error! • Extrapolation to LHC dNch/dη = (6.1±0.13)×(0.5Np). • Extrapolation to lowest energy gives: • for ET: √s0NN = 2.35 ± 0.2 GeV • for Nch: √s0NN = 1.48 ± 0.02 GeV Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  23. Low √sNN story Nch ET FOPI ln(√sNN) 2a.m.u. • Higher energy: <ET>/<Nch> ~ constant √soNN Nch • Lower energy: √soNN <ET>/<Nch>  <mT> • That’s what we see • What do √soNN mean? • Energy conservation law. • Now comes FOPI at <0.1 GeV kinetic energy! -0.5 GeV +0.5 GeV PHENIX preliminary Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  24. What happens to <mT>? H. Satz, Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 1511 (2000) • At low √sNN: • ET is “produced” energy only. • Nch can benefit from pre-existing particles (baryons). • At higher √sNN: • Critical temperature Tc=0.17GeV. • Assuming: <Ekin>=3/2Tc ≈ 0.26 GeV<m0> ≈ 0.25 GeV <mT> = <Ekin> + <m0> ≈ 0.51 GeV <ET>/<Nch> ≈ 1.6 <mT> ≈ 0.82 GeV • Prediction for LHC: 0.93±0.04 GeV PHENIX preliminary Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  25. √sNN = 4-8GeV? H. Appelshauser, Nucl. Phys. 698, 253 (2002) J.Stachel P.Braunmunzinger. Journ Phys G 28 1974 (2002) CERES: PRL 90, 022301 (2003) M. Gazdzicki, QM2004 Talk PHENIX preliminary Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  26. Centrality shapes. • Hard/Soft approach: • Might be deceiving: e.g. strangeness turn on. • Negatively correlated errors are huge. • Npα parameterizations: • assumes a power law • what does α mean? • Still large errors • PHOBOS as of June 2,2004 nucl-ex/0405027: • Bottom line: inconclusive! Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  27. Centrality shapes: basic approach • Let’s start with the ln(√sNN) parameterization and divide most central bin by its value. PHENIX preliminary • So can be done with othe centralities, we use Np=100 • Instead of peripheral events, where data is absent or has large errors, one can use pp data. Np=2 • To make more sense about the shapes let’s look at the difference for different centralities. Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  28. Centrality shapes: basic approach • Quality of the data still needs to be improved! • Isn’t this familiar? • Almost flat at RHIC energies • Rising behavior at SPS and below. • No room for saturation!? • Centrality curve doesn’t tend to become flat • What happens above? • pp data tend to approach ln(sNN) line. • Would the A-A data stay the same or deviate from ln(sNN)? PHENIX preliminary Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  29. Bjorken energy. • εBJ=(Sτ)-1dET/dy • 200 GeV 5.4±0.6GeV/(fm2c) 5% • What about “τ”? • Limiting: 1/(2Rγ) ≈ 0.15 fm/c • Formation: h/mT ≈ 0.6ET/Nch ≈ 0.3 fm/c • Centrality is measured and can be used to compare to other effects in HI collisions. • STAR (nucl-ex/03011017) uses another approach taking for overlap area S ~Np3/2. • area of the nuclei • area of the nucleons • different at low Np PHENIX preliminary • Two curves agree within errors, but the slope at STAR is smaller. Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  30. Models: experimentalist’s view • Global observables can constrain (give input to) some models, but cannot prove them to be right. • What can experimentalists do with the models? • Theoretical model is particularly hard to kill even with the data! • How well defined is a model within its own assumptions? • How should one compare models to data? • Model vs. Generator: • Do you know why we are such in love with HIJING? • IMHO: Model is a precursor to the Generator. • Major difference besides completeness and ease of use Generator does partial probabilities! • Thanks to all authors who sent us their data! Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  31. Models I PHENIX preliminary LUCIFER Hadronic cascade model, input fixed from lower energy. D.E.Kahana & S.H.Kahana, nucl-th/0208063. Minijet Multiphase transport model, includes both initial partonic and final hadronic interactions. S. Lee and X.N. Wang, Phys Lett B527, 85 (2002) EKRT K.J. Eskola, et al., Nucl. Phys. B570, 379 (2000), Phys Lett B497, 39 (2001). SSHM Saturation for Semi-Hard Minijetis. pQCD-based for semi-hard partonic interaction WNM for soft particle production. A.Accardi, Phys Rev C64, 064905 (2001). KLN D. Kharzeev and M. Nardi, Phys Lett B507, 121(2001), D. Kharzeev and E. Levin, Phys Lett B523, 79 (2001). Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  32. Models II PHENIX preliminary DSM: Dual String Model, Dual Parton Model + strings. R. Ugoccioni, Phys Lett B49, 253 (2000). A. Capella et al, Phys Lett C236, 225 (1994). HIJING: pQCD for initial minijet production and the Lund string model for jet fragmentation and hadronization, +jet quenching +nuclear shadowing. X.N. Wang et al. PRC 68, 054902 (2003). LEXUS: Linear EXtrapolation of UltraRrelativsitic nucleon-nucleon scattering data to nucleus- nucleus collisions. S. Jeon and J. Kapusta, Phys Rew C63, 011901 (2001) AMPT: multiphase transport model +initial partonic and final hadronic interactions. Z. Lin et al. Phys Rew. C64, 011902 (2001). SFM: String Fusion Model string model, includes hard collisions, collectivity in the initial state (string fusion), and final state. N. Armesto Perez et al., Phys Lett B527, 92 (2002) Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  33. Models III PHENIX preliminary Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  34. Summary Ravioli Cheese? Mushrooms? Spinach? What is inside? Potato? Nothing? Meet? Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

  35. Summary Ravioli • Global observables “phase transition”: • Quantity  Quality • Measurement  Systematization  Understanding. • Intriguing and exciting: • <ET>/<Nch> vs. centrality is flat! • <ET>/<Nch> vs. √sNN is consistent with freeze-out temperature and has two distinct regions. • Both dET /dη and dNch/dη at mid-rapidity scale with ln(sNN) over all measured √sNN (factor of 100 for Nch) landing SIS and RHIC on the same line! • What do √s0NN mean? • Centrality shape of dNch/dη looks to be independent of √sNN at RHIC energies and flattens out at lower. • Something is going on at lower SPS energy! • LHC predictions are on the desk! Let’s see what data says! Sasha Milov Focus on Multiplicity Bari June 17, 2004

More Related