Loading in 5 sec....

Rapporteur II: Global & Flow ObservablesPowerPoint Presentation

Rapporteur II: Global & Flow Observables

- 81 Views
- Uploaded on

Download Presentation
## PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Rapporteur II: Global & Flow Observables' - aolani

**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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Event shape

dN/dh

Centrality dependence

dN/dh

dET/dh

pT

Initial Energy density

“Flow”

Event shape

dN/df

Centrality dependence

dN/df

Species

v1,v2,

Initial Pressure

Outline- In principle, we are looking at two important pieces of the equation of state…

Centrality: Participants vs. Spectators

The collision geometry (i.e. the impact parameter) determines the number of nucleons that participate in the collision

“Spectators”

Only ZDCs measure Npart

Zero-degreeCalorimeter

“Participants”

“Spectators”

- Many things scale with Npart:
- Transverse Energy
- Particle Multiplicity
- Particle Spectra

Produced Particles

Fluctuations modify the response

less central events fluctuate to central bins

The final “measurement” of Npart is the best attempt to factor out the facts of life!

In principle, we could work with % of cross section

Final measurement of Npart is best attempt to correct for facts of life

Measuring CentralityNpart

Multiplicity in 3<|h|<4.5

- Clearly, fluctuations affect your centrality estimator

Why we should use Npart

- Very difficult to compare experimental results without serious estimate of Npart
- Must incorporate fluctuations in the measurement of the centrality estimators
- OK, Glauber implementation is a real uncertainty
- Even if you don’t “like” participants, the exercise is critical for inter-experiment comparisons

BBC

Percentile

ZDC as centrality device- Only shared detector
- Rates: luminosity via well-known reference process
- Timing: substantial background rejection
- Pulse height: measures centrality

- Directly confirms monotonic relationship between participants with multiplicity

Reference: szdc =10.7+/-0.5 b

Measurement: (geo / tot)exp =

(Nbbc/ Ntot)exp/ bbc= (0.668 0.022)

Theory: geo / tot = (0.673 <0.034)

Mutual Coulomb Dissociation(measured)

(from Glauber)

Multiplicity: what is learned

- Can the models get the “big picture” right?
- However, let’s not ignore the details…

- Magnitude
- Integral over energy density, stopping, shadowing, quenching, flow

- Centrality dependence
- Study effect of system size (onset of interesting effects above critical volume)
- Interplay between Npart and Ncoll

- Shape
- Stopping, Final state interactions

dN/dh: Post-dictions

LEXUS

- AMPT, LEXUS, DSM, HIJING, EKRT
- Please be careful about scaling y to h
- Not boost invariant!
- Not .9, .95 etc.
- Jacobian depends on velocity: dy = b dh
- Depends on species and mean pT!

- Still not sure who gets the champagne…wait for 200 GeV

AMPT

Measurement sensitive to trigger bias

“Minimum-bias” still has bias

Affects most peripheral events

Uncertainty on Npart% Error on Npart

This measurement

Npart

- Estimating 96% when really 90% overestimates Npart
- Creates “pivot point” at central events
- Hard to rule out EKRT…

Shapes of dNch/dh for different Npart

%s

Mean Npart

0-3

Data

HIJING

354

15-20

216

35-40

102

dNch/dh

dNch/dh

Data

HIJING

(dNch/dh)/(½Npart)

(dNch/dh)/(½Npart)

h

h

Systematic error ±(10%-20%)

PHOBOS Prelim.

Centrality dependence of dNch/dh|hSolid lines: HIJING

Symbols:

Errors are systematic

|h|

<1

2-2.4

(dNch/dh)/(½Npart)

3-3.4

4-4.4

5-5.4

Npart

Multiplicity Results

- EKRT, HIJING disfavored by both PHENIX & PHOBOS
- Initial state saturation looks like modified Glauber
- No way to resolve using Nch alone

- What about ET?
- Hydro does p dV work during longitudinal expansion, decreases dET/dh
- Eskola: “ET will be more efficient model killer”…

- So far, few papers predicting ET, but surely on the way
- PHOBOS got 9 in two months after the first paper…

Centrality dependence of ET

PHENIX submitted

PHENIX Preliminary

- ET and charged particles appear to vary in lockstep
- Fits are a modified WNM, possibly allow extraction of fraction of hard production (NB. ambiguities persist…)

Appears to be same as WA98 (@SPS)

Energy dependence

Possible 20% discrepancy betw. NA49/WA98

Where is the increased <pT> seen by STAR/PHENIX?

ET per charged particlePHENIX Preliminary

PHENIX Preliminary

Implication of PHENIX

Constant ET/charged particle

Energy density (via Bj formula) simply scales with multiplicity!

(Even PHOBOS can do it!)

~50% higher than SPS…

Ambiguities persist

Formation time might be substantially less

“So what’s the Energy Density?”Not seen in angular distributions

Use HBT, spectra (T = To + m<b2> - Nu Xu)

Directed flow

Forward rapidities

Not measured yet

Sensitivity estimated at PHOBOS/STAR

Interesting predictions for phase transition…

Elliptic flow

Early time push, hydrodynamic evolution

Strongest at midrapidity

“Flow”Similar information content as Fourier method

OK for partial acceptance

Sensitive to other correlations

Jets (at 180o) , HBT (at 0o)

But is that bad?

CERES data

v2 from azimuthal correlations0-5%

Df

5-15%

15-30%

v2 versus centrality

- Boxes show “initial spatial anisotropy”e scaled by 0.19-0.25

PRL 86, (2001) 402

|| < 1.3

0.1 < pt < 2.0

Centrality Dependence

midrapidity : |h| < 1.0

V2

Hydrodynamic model

Preliminary

SPS

AGS

Normalized Paddle Signal

CERES slides

- Excitation function
- CERES 40 GeV fits in with existing energy systematics

- Back-to-Back correlations
- Extraction of v2 is substantially higher than normal event plane analysis

pT dependence for p,p

- Hydro calculations: P. Huovinen, P. Kolb and U. Heinz

v2 at high pT

PHENIX Preliminary

- Hydro fails at large transverse momentum
- Possible interpretations suggested by jet quenching (wait for A. Drees talk)
- However, perhaps composition is a critical part of this effect…

v2 vs. (pseudo)rapidity

v2

v2

- NA49 (y), PHOBOS(h) (mainly pions)
- Different shape at midrapidity
- PHOBOS shape similar to dN/dh!
- Low-density limit?? v2 ~ e dN/dy

- However, v2 appears to fall faster than multiplicity

PHOBOS Preliminary

y

h

PHOBOS Preliminary

dN/dh

h

ÖsNN dependence

- Assumptions:
in Lab in C.M.

- Energy density (Bjorken):
- From SPS to RHIC
- ~50% increase in dNch/dy
- ~50% increase in dEt/dy
- at least 50% increase in e

Mean pt versus number of participants

- Pions
steep rise and plateau

- Protons
gradual rise and higher <pt>

Sub Event Correlation

- Non-Flow Effects
- Momentum conservation
- HBT, Coulomb (final state)
- Resonance decays
- Jets

Download Presentation

Connecting to Server..