1 / 25

Femtoscopic search for the 1-st order PT

Femtoscopic search for the 1-st order PT. Femtoscopic signature of QGP 1-st order PT Solving Femtoscopy Puzzle II Searching for large scales Conclusions. Rischke & Gyulassy, NPA 608, 479 (1996). With 1 st order Phase transition. Femtoscopic signature of QGP. 3D 1-fluid Hydrodynamics.

carlo
Télécharger la présentation

Femtoscopic search for the 1-st order PT

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. Femtoscopic search for the 1-st order PT • Femtoscopic signature of QGP 1-st order PT • Solving Femtoscopy Puzzle II • Searching for large scales • Conclusions Richard Lednický Physics@NICA’09

  2. Rischke & Gyulassy, NPA 608, 479 (1996) With 1st order Phase transition Femtoscopic signature of QGP 3D 1-fluid Hydrodynamics Initial energy density 0 • Long-standing signature of QGP: • increase in , ROUT/RSIDE due to the Phase transition • hoped-for “turn on” as QGP threshold in 0is reached •  decreases with decreasing Latent heat & increasing tr. Flow • (high 0 or initial tr. Flow)

  3. Femto-puzzle II No signal of a bump in Rout near the QGP threshold expected at AGS-SPS energies !

  4. Cassing – Bratkovskaya: Parton-Hadron-String-Dynamics Perspectives at FAIR/NICA energies  Solving Femtoscopy Puzzle II

  5. r Radii vs fraction of the large scale r1 Input: 1, 2=1-1, r1=15, r2=5 fm 1-G Fit: r ,  2-G Fit: 1, 2, r1,r2 r2  2 1 1 1 Typical stat. errors in 1-G (3d) fit  (r1)/0.06 fm e.g., NA49 central Pb+Pb 158 AGeV Y=0-05, pt=0.25 GeV/c Rout=5.29±.08±.42 Rside=4.66±.06±.14 Rlong=5.19±.08±.24 =0.52±.01±.09  (1)/0.01 1

  6. Imaging

  7. Conclusions • Femtoscopic Puzzle I – Small time scales at SPS-RHIC energies – basically solved due to initial acceleration • Femtoscopic Puzzle II – No clear signal of a bump in Rout near the QGP threshold expected at AGS-SPS energies – basically solved due to a dramatic decrease of partonic phase with decreasing energy • Femtoscopic search for the effects of QGP threshold and CP can be successful only in dedicated high statistics and precise experiments allowing for a multidimensional multiparameter or imaging correlation analysis

  8. This year we have celebrated 90th Anniversary of the birth of one of the Femtoscopyfathers M.I. Podgoretsky (22.04.1919-19.04.1995)

  9. Spare Slides

  10. Introduction to Femtoscopy 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

  11. 2xGoldhaber, Lee & Pais GGLP’60: enhanced ++, --vs +- at small opening angles – interpreted as BE enhancement depending on fireball radius R0 p p  2+ 2 - n0 R0 = 0.75 fm

  12. Kopylov & Podgoretsky KP’71-75: settled basics of correlation femtoscopy in > 20 papers • proposed CF= Ncorr /Nuncorr& mixing techniques to construct Nuncorr • clarified role of space-time characteristics in various models • noted an analogy of γγmomentum correlations (BE enhancement) & differences (orthogonality) Grishin, KP’71 & KP’75 with space-time correlations (HBT effect) in Astronomy HBT’56 intensity-correlation spectroscopy Goldberger,Lewis,Watson’63-66

  13. 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-ik*r* +(-1)S eik*r*]/√2 |2 

  14. “General” parameterization at |q|  0 Particles on mass shell & azimuthal symmetry  5 variables: q = {qx , qy , qz}  {qout , qside , qlong}, pair velocity v = {vx,0,vz} q0 = qp/p0 qv = qxvx+ qzvz y  side Grassberger’77 RL’78 x  out transverse pair velocity vt z  long beam cos qx=1-½(qx)2+..exp(-Rx2qx2 -Ry2qy2-Rz2qz2-2Rxz2qx qz) Interferometry or correlation radii: Rx2 =½  (x-vxt)2 , Ry2 =½  (y)2 , Rz2 =½  (z-vzt)2  Podgoretsky’83;often called cartesian or BP’95 parameterization Csorgo, Pratt’91: LCMS vz = 0

  15. BW: Retiere@LBL’05 pion 0.73c 0.91c , , Flow & Radii ← Emission points at a given tr. velocity px = 0.15 GeV/c 0.3 GeV/c Rz2 2 (T/mt) Ry2 = y’2 Kaon Rx2= x’2-2vxx’t’+vx2t’2 t’2  (-)2  ()2 px = 0.53 GeV/c 1.07 GeV/c For a Gaussian density profile with a radius RG and linear flow velocity profile F(r) = 0r/ RG: Proton Ry2 = RG2 / [1+ 02 mt /T] px = 1.01 GeV/c 2.02 GeV/c Rz  = evolution time Rx  = emission duration Rx , Ry0 = tr. flow velocity pt–spectra  T = temperature

  16. BW fit of Au-Au 200 GeV Retiere@LBL’05 T=106 ± 1 MeV <bInPlane> = 0.571 ± 0.004 c <bOutOfPlane> = 0.540 ± 0.004 c RInPlane = 11.1 ± 0.2 fm ROutOfPlane = 12.1 ± 0.2 fm Life time (t) = 8.4 ± 0.2 fm/c Emission duration = 1.9 ± 0.2 fm/c c2/dof = 120 / 86 R βx≈β0(r/R) βz≈ z/τ

  17. Hydro assuming ideal fluid explains strong collective () flows at RHIC but not the interferometryresults 2005 Femtoscopy Puzzle I But comparing Bass, Dumitru, .. 1+1D Hydro+UrQMD 1+1D H+UrQMD Huovinen, Kolb, .. 2+1D Hydro with 2+1D Hydro Hirano, Nara, .. 3D Hydro  kinetic evolution ? not enough F ~ conserves Rout,Rlong & increases Rside at small pt (resonances ?) Good prospect for 3D Hydro + hadron transport + ? initialF

  18. Early Acceleration & FemtoscopyPuzzle I Scott Pratt

  19. Lattice says: crossover at µ = 0 but CP location is not clear CP: T ~ 170 MeV, μB > 200 MeV

  20. Cassing – Bratkovskaya:

  21. Imaging is based on

  22. Conclusions from Imaging  

More Related