History Assumptions & Technicalities

1 / 29

# History Assumptions & Technicalities - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Femtoscopic Correlations and Final State Resonance Formation R. Lednický, JINR Dubna & IP ASCR Prague. History Assumptions & Technicalities Narrow resonance FSI contributions to π +  -  K + K - CF’s Conclusions. History. Correlation femtoscopy :.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'History Assumptions & Technicalities' - riva

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
WPCF Kiev‘10 Femtoscopic Correlations and Final State Resonance Formation R. Lednický, JINR Dubna & IP ASCR Prague
• History
• Assumptions & Technicalities
• Narrow resonance FSI contributions to π+-  K+K- CF’s
• Conclusions
History

Correlation femtoscopy :

measurement of space-time characteristics R, c ~ fm

Fermi’34:e± NucleusCoulomb FSI in β-decay modifies the relative momentum (k) distribution → Fermi (correlation) function F(k,Z,R) is sensitive to Nucleusradius R if charge Z » 1

of particle production using particle correlations

Fermi function F(k,Z,R) in β-decay

F = |-k(r)|2~ (kR)-(Z/137)2

Z=83 (Bi)‏

β-

2 fm

4

R=8

β+

k MeV/c

KP’71-75: settled basics of correlation femtoscopy

in > 20 papers

(for non-interacting identical particles)‏

• proposed CF= Ncorr /Nuncorr&

mixing techniques to construct Nuncorr

•showed that sufficientlysmooth momentum spectrum allows one to neglect space-time coherence at small q*

|∫d4x1d4x2p1p2(x1,x2)...|2 →∫d4x1d4x2p1p2(x1,x2)|2...

•clarified role of space-time characteristics in various models

Assumptions to derive “Fermi” formula for CF

CF =  |-k*(r*)|2

- two-particle approximation (small freezeout PS density f)‏

~ OK, <f>  1 ? lowpt

- smoothness approximation: pqcorrel Remitter Rsource

~ OK in HIC, Rsource20.1 fm2

 pt2-slope of direct particles

usually OK

- equal time approximation in PRF

RL, Lyuboshitz’82  eq. time condition |t*| r*2

to several %

- tFSI = dd/dE >tprod

tFSI (s-wave) = µf0/k*  k*= ½q* hundreds MeV/c

• typical momentum transfer

in the production process

RL, Lyuboshitz ..’98

& account for coupled channels within the same isomultiplet only:

+00, -p 0n, K+KK0K0, ...

tFSI (resonance in any L-wave) = 2/  hundreds MeV/c

∫d4x1d4x2 G(x1,p1;x2,p2) |p1p2(x1,x2)|2 ∫d3r WP(r,k) |-k(r)|2

∫d3r {WP(r,k) + WP(r,½(k-kn)) 2Re[exp(ikr)-k(r)]

+WP(r,-kn) |-k(r)|2 }

where-k(r) = exp(-ikr)+-k(r) andn = r/r

Thesmoothness approximation

WP(r,½(k-kn))  WP(r,-kn)  WP(r,k)

is valid if one can neglect the k-dependence of

WP(r,k), e.g. for k << 1/r0

Assuming that one of the two particles is spinless and the other one is

either spin-1/2 or spin-1/2, we have:

Angular dependence enters only through the angle  between the vectors k and r in the argument of the Wigner (rotation) d-functions.

Technicalities – 3: contribution of the outer region

For r > d = the range of the strong interaction potential,

Technicalities – 8: simple Gaussian emission functions

In the following we use the simple one-parameter Gaussian

emission function:

WP(r,k) = (8π3/2r03)-1 exp(-r2/4r02)

and account for the k-dependence in the form

( = angle between r and k)

WP(r,k) = (8π3/2r03)-1 exp(-b2r02k2) exp(-r2/4r02 + bkrcos)

Note the additional suppression of WP(0,k) if out  0:

WP(0,k) ~exp[-(out/2r0)2] (~30% suppression for π+-)

References related to resonance formation in final state:

R. Lednicky, V.L. Lyuboshitz, SJNP 35 (1982) 770

R. Lednicky, V.L. Lyuboshitz, V.V. Lyuboshitz, Phys.At.Nucl. 61 (1998) 2050

S. Pratt, S. Petriconi, PRC 68 (2003) 054901

S. Petriconi, PhD Thesis, MSU ,2003

S. Bekele, R. Lednicky, Braz.J.Phys. 37 (2007) 994

B. Kerbikov, R. Lednicky, L.V. Malinina, P. Chaloupka, M. Sumbera, arXiv:0907.061v2 B. Kerbikov, L.V. Malinina, PRC 81 (2010) 034901

R. Lednicky, P. Chaloupka, M. Sumbera, in preperation

p-X correlations in Au+Au (STAR)

P. Chaloupka, JPG 32 (2006) S537; M. Sumbera, Braz.J.Phys. 37(2007)925

• Coulomb and strong FSI presentX*1530, k*=146 MeV/c, =9.1 MeV
• No energy dependence seen
• Centrality dependence observed, quite strong in the X* region; 0-10% CF peak value CF-1  0.025
• Gaussian fit of 0-10% CF’s at k* < 0.1 GeV/c: r0=4.8±0.7 fm, out = -5.6±1.0 fm

r0 =[½(rπ2+r2)]½ of ~5 fm is in agreement with the dominant rπ of 7 fm

K+ K-correlations in Pb+Pb (NA49)

PLB 557 (2003) 157

• Coulomb and strong FSI present1020, k*=126 MeV/c, =4.3 MeV
• Centrality dependence observed, particularly strong in the  region; 0-5% CF peak value CF-1  0.10
• 3D-Gaussian fit of 0-5% CF’s: out-side-long radii of 4-5 fm
Resonance FSI contributions to π+-  K+K- CF’s
• Complete and corresponding inner and outer contributions of p-wave resonance (*) FSI to π+- CF for two cut parameters 0.4 and 0.8 fm and Gaussian radius of 5 fm  * FSI contribution strongly overestimated
• The same for p-wave resonance () FSI contributions to K+K- CF   FSI contribution well described but no room for direct production !

Rpeak(STAR)

 0.025

----------- -----

Rpeak(NA49)

 0.10

----------- -----

Peak values of resonance FSI contributions to π+-  K+K- CF’s vs cut parameter 
• Complete and corresponding inner and outer contributions of p-wave resonance (*) FSI to peak value of π+- CF for Gaussian radius of 5 fm
• The same for p-wave resonance () FSI contributions to K+K- CF

 for  < r0, CF is practically -independent

 at ~1 fm, CFCF(inner)

Rpeak(STAR)

 0.025

----- ---------------

Rpeak(NA49)

 0.10

-----------------------

0-10% 200 GeV Au+Au

FASTMC-code

from L. Malinina

r* < 1 fm

r* < 0.5 fm

 = angle between r and k

WP(r,k) ~ exp[-r2/4r02 + b krcos]

b  0.5

Angular dependence – example parametrization

WP(r,k) ~ exp[-r2/4r02 + bkrcos];  = angle between r and k

R(π+-)

k=146 MeV/c, r0=5 fm

Suppressing WP(0,k)

by a factor of

exp[-b2r02k2]

Smoothness assumption:

WP(r,½(k-kn))  WP(r,-kn)  WP(r,k)

Exact

Rpeak(STAR)

--------------  0.025

b=0.3 0.4

Similar suppression

of resonance

contribution to CF

b

Accounting for angular dependence:FASTMC-code (implying smoothness assumption)  close to the STAR peak but too low at small k* (L.M.) OK at small k* but much higher peak (P. Ch.)

b < 0.4

Indicating that the

parametrization of

the angular dependence

~ exp(b krcos), b0.5

is oversimplified

Rpeak(STAR)

--------------  0.025

Summary
• Assumptions behind femtoscopy theory in HIC seem OK, including both short-range s-wave and narrow resonance FSI up to a problem of the angular dependence in the resonance region.
• The effect of narrow resonance FSI scales as inverse emission volume r0-3, compared to r0-1 or r0-2 scaling of the short-range s-wave FSI, thus being more sensitive to the space-time extent of the source. The higher sensitivity may be however disfavoured by the theoretical uncertainty in the case of a strong angular asymmetry.
• The NA49 (? STAR) correlation data from the most central collisions seem to leave a little or no room for a direct (thermal) production of near threshold narrow resonances.

QS symmetrization of production amplitudemomentum correlations of identical particles are sensitive to space-time structure of the source

KP’71-75

total pair spin

CF=1+(-1)Scos qx

exp(-ip1x1)‏

p1

2

x1

,nns,s

x2

1/R0

1

p2

2R0

nnt,t

PRF

q =p1- p2 → {0,2k}

x = x1- x2 → {t,r}

|q|

0

CF →|S-k(r)|2  =| [ e-ikr +(-1)S eikr]/√2 |2 

Final State Interaction

|-k(r)|2

Similar to Coulomb distortion of -decay Fermi’34:

Migdal, Watson, Sakharov, … Koonin, GKW, ...

fcAc(G0+iF0)‏

s-wave

strong FSI

}

FSI

nn

e-ikr -k(r)  [ e-ikr +f(k)eikr/r ]

CF

pp

Coulomb

|1+f/r|2

kr+kr

F=1+ _______ + …

eicAc

ka

}

}

Coulomb only

Point-like

Coulomb factor

k=|q|/2

 FSI is sensitive to source size r and scattering amplitude f

It complicates CF analysis but makes possible

 Femtoscopy with nonidentical particlesK,p, .. &

Coalescence deuterons, ..

Study “exotic” scattering,K, KK,, p,, ..

Study relative space-time asymmetriesdelays, flow

BS-amplitude 

Then for interacting particles:

Product of plane waves -> BS-amplitude  :

Production probability W(p1,p2|Τ(p1,p2;)|2

Smoothness approximation: rA« r0 (q « p)

W(p1,p2|∫d4x1d4x2p1p2(x1,x2) Τ(x1,x2;)|2

=∫d4x1d4x1’d4x2d4x2’

p1p2(x1,x2)p1p2*(x1’,x2’)‏

Τ(x1,x2 ;)Τ*(x1’,x2’ ;)‏

p1

x1

≈ ∫d4x1d4x2G(x1,p1;x2,p2) |p1p2(x1,x2)|2

x1’

x2’

Source function

G(x1,p1;x2,p2)

= ∫d4ε1d4ε2 exp(ip1ε1+ip2ε2)‏

Τ(x1+½ε1,x2 +½ε2;)Τ*(x1-½ε1,x2-½ε2;)

x2

p2

2r0

For non-interacting identical spin-0 particles – exact result (p=½(p1+p2) ):‏

W(p1,p2∫ d4x1d4x2 [G(x1,p1;x2,p2)+G(x1,p;x2,p) cos(qx)]

approx. result: ≈ ∫d4x1d4x2 G(x1,p1;x2,p2) [1+cos(qx)]

= ∫ d4x1d4x2 G(x1,p1;x2,p2) |p1p2(x1,x2)|2

Effect of nonequal times in pair cms

RL, Lyuboshitz SJNP 35 (82) 770; RL nucl-th/0501065

Applicability condition of equal-time approximation: |t*| r*2

r0=2 fm 0=2 fm/c

r0=2 fm v=0.1

OK for heavy

particles

 OK within 5%

even for pions if

0 ~r0 or lower

Technicalities – 7: volume integral I(,k)

In the single flavor case & no Coulomb FSI

For s & p-waves it recovers the results of Wigner’55 & Luders’55