1 / 22

Low-x Observables at RHIC (with a focus on PHENIX)

Low-x Observables at RHIC (with a focus on PHENIX). Prof. Brian A Cole Columbia University. Outline Low-x physics of heavy ion collisions PHENIX E t and multiplicity measurements PHOBOS dn/d  measurements High-p t hadrons: geometric scaling ?? Summary. Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.

dalia
Télécharger la présentation

Low-x Observables at RHIC (with a focus on PHENIX)

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. Low-x Observables at RHIC (with a focus on PHENIX) Prof. Brian A Cole Columbia University Outline • Low-x physics of heavy ion collisions • PHENIX Et and multiplicity measurements • PHOBOS dn/d measurements • High-pt hadrons: geometric scaling ?? • Summary

  2. Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider STAR • Run 1 (2000) : Au-Au @ SNN = 130 GeV • Run 2 (2001-2): Au-Au, p-p @ SNN = 200 GeV • (1-day run): Au+Au @ SNN = 20 GeV • Run 3 (2003): d-Au, p-p@ SNN = 200 GeV

  3. Collision seen in “Target” Rest Frame • Projectile boost  104. • Due to Lorentz contraction gluons overlap longitudinally • They combine producing large(r) kt gluons. • Apply uncertainty princ. • E = kt2 / 2Px ~  / 2 t • Some numbers: • mid-rapidity  x  10-2 • Nuclear crossing t ~ 10 fm/c • kt2 ~ 2 GeV2 • Gluons with much lower kt are frozen during collision. • Target simply stimulates emission of pre-existing gluons

  4. How Many Gluons (rough estimate) ? • Measurements of transverse energy (Et =  E sin) in “head on” Au-Au collisions give dEt / d ~ 600 GeV (see below). • Assume primordial gluons carry same Et • Gluons created at proper time  and rapidity y appear at spatial z =  z =  sinh y • So dz =  cosh y dy • In any local (long.) rest frame z =  y. • dEt / d3x = dEt / d / A (neglecting y,  difference) • For Au-Au collision, A =  6.82  150 fm2. • Take  = 1/kt , dEt ~ kt dNg • dNg /d3x ~ 600 GeV/ 150 fm2 / 0.2 GeV fm = 20 fm-3 • For kt ~ 1 GeV/c, dNg / dA ~ 4 fm-2 • Very large gluon densities and fluxes.

  5. “Centrality” in Heavy Ion Collisions • Violence of collision determined by b. • Characterize collision by Npart: • # of nucleons that “participate” or scatter in collision. • Nucleons that don’t participate we call spectators. • A = 197 for Au  maximum Npart in Au-Au is 394. • Smaller b  larger Npart, more “central” collisions • Use Glauber formalism to estimate Npart for experimental centrality cuts (below). Spectators Impact parameter (b)

  6. Saturation in Heavy Ion Collisions • Kharzeev, Levin, Nardi Model • Large gluon flux in highly boosted nucleus • When probe w/ resolution Q2 “sees” multiple partons, twist expansion fails • i.e. when  >> 1 • New scale: Qs2Q2 at which  = 1 • Take cross section  =  s(Q2) / Q2 • Gluon area density in nucleus   xG(x, Q2) nucleon • Then solve: Qs2 = [constants] s (Qs2) xG(x, Qs2) nucleon • Observe: Qs depends explicitly on nucleon • KLN obtain Qs2 = 2 GeV2at center of Au nucleus. • But gluon flux now can now be related to Qs •   Qs2 / s (Qs2)

  7. Saturation Applied to HI Collisions • Use above approach to determine gluon flux in incident nuclei in Au-Au collisions. • Assume constant fraction, c, of these gluons are liberated by the collision. • Assume parton-hadron duality: • Number of final hadrons  number of emitted gluons • To evaluate centrality dependence: • nucleon  ½ part • Only count participants from one nucleus for Qs • To evaluate energy dependence: • Take Qs s dependence from Golec-Biernat & Wüsthof • Qs(s) / Qs(s0) = (s/s0)/2,  ~ 0.3. • Try to describe gross features of HI collisions • e.g. Multiplicity (dN/d), transverse energy (dEt / d)

  8. Low-x Observables in PHENIX Charged Multiplicity Pad Chambers: RPC1 = 2.5 m RPC3 = 5.0 m ||<0.35, = Transverse Energy Lead-Scintillator EMCal: REMC = 5.0 m ||<0.38,  = (5/8) Trigger & Centrality Beam-Beam Counters: 3.0<|h|<3.9, = 2 0º Calorimeters: |h| > 6, |Z|=18.25 m Collision Region (not to scale)

  9. PHENIX Centrality Selection ET EZDC b QBBC Nch • Zero-degree calorimeters: • Measure energy (EZDC) in spectator neutrons. • Smaller b  smaller EZDC • Except @ large b neutrons carried by nuclear fragments. • Beam-beam counters: • Measure multiplicity (QBBC) in nucleon frag. region. • Smaller b  larger QBBC • Make cuts on EZDC vs QBBC according to fraction of tot “above” the cut. • State centrality bins by fractional range of tot • E.g. 0-5%  5% most central EZDC 15% 20% 5% 10% QBBC

  10. Charged Particle Multiplicity Measurement Count particles on statistical basis • Turn magnetic field off. • Form “track candidates” from hits on two pad chambers. • Require tracks to point to beamline and match vertex from beam-beam detector. • Nchg  number of such tracks. • Determine background from false tracks by event mixing • Correct for acceptance,  conversions, & hadronic interactions in material. • Show multiplicity distributions for 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-15%, 15-20% centrality bins compared to minimum bias. Minimum bias 0-5%

  11. PHENIX: Et in EM Calorimeter • Definition: Et =  Ei sini • Ei = Eitot - mNfor baryons • Ei = Eitot +mN for antibaryons • Ei = Eitot for others • Correct for fraction of deposited energy • 100% for , 0, 70 % for  • Correct for acceptance • Energy calibration by: • Minimum ionizing part. • electron E/p matching • 0 mass peak • Plot Et dist’s for 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-15%, 15-20% centrality bins compared to minimum bias. Sample M Minv Dist. 0

  12. Et and Nchg Per Participant Pair 200 GeV 130 GeV dEt/d (GeV) per part. pair 200 GeV 130 GeV dNchg/d (GeV) per part. pair Npart Npart • Bands (bars) – correlated (total) syst. Errors • Slow change in Et and Nchg per participant pair • Despite 20 change in total Et or Nchg PHENIX preliminary PHENIX preliminary Beware of suppressed zero !

  13. Et Per Charged Particle • Centrality dependence of Et and Nchg very similar @ 130, 200 GeV. • Take ratio: Et per charged particle. •  perfectly constant • Little or no dependence on beam energy. • Non-trivial given s dependence of hadron composition. • Implication: • Et / Nchg determined by physics of hadronization. • Only one of Nchg, Et can be saturation observable. PHENIX preliminary

  14. Multiplicity: Model Comparisons 130 GeV 200 GeV dNchg / d per part. pair Npart Npart • KLN saturation model well describes dN/d vs Npart. • Npart variation due to Qs dependence on part (nucleon). • EKRT uses “final-state” saturation – too strong !! • Mini-jet + soft model (HIJING) does less well. • Improved Mini-jet model does better. • Introduces an Npartdependent hard cutoff (p0) • Ad Hoc saturation ?? HIJING X.N.Wang and M.Gyulassy, PRL 86, 3498 (2001) Mini-jet S.Li and X.W.Wang Phys.Lett.B527:85-91 (2002) EKRT K.J.Eskola et al, Nucl Phys. B570, 379 and Phys.Lett. B 497, 39 (2001) KLN D.Kharzeev and M. Nardi, Phys.Lett. B503, 121 (2001) D.Kharzeev and E.Levin, Phys.Lett. B523, 79 (2001)

  15. Multiplicity: Energy Dependence Nchg (200) / Nchg (130) Npart • s dependence an important test of saturation • Determined by s dependence of Qs from HERA data • KLN Saturation model correctly predicted the change in Nchg between 200 and 130 GeV. • And the lack of Npart dependence in the ratio. • Compared to mini-jet (HIJING) model.

  16. dN/d Measurements by PHOBOS -3 0 +3 -5.5 +5.5 • PHOBOS covers large  range w/ silicon detectors h=-ln tan q/2 simulation Total Nchg(central collision) • 5060 ± 250 @ 200 GeV • 4170 ± 210 @ 130 GeV • 1680 ± 100 @ 19.6 GeV  

  17. dN/d Saturation Model Comparisons • Additional model “input” • x dependence of G(x) outside saturation region • xG(x) ~ x- (1-x)4 • GLR formula for inclusive gluon emission: • To evaluate yield when one of nuclei is out of saturation. • Assumption of gluon mass (for y  ) • M2 = Qs • 1 GeV • Compare to PHOBOS data at 130 GeV. • Incredible agreement ?!! Kharzeev and Levin Phys. Lett. B523:79-87, 2001 dN/d per part. pair dN/d

  18. Classical Yang-Mills Calculation x 2.4 x 1.1 • Treat initial gluon fields as classical fields using M-V initial conditions. • Solve classical equations of motion on the lattice. • At late times, use harm. osc. approx. to obtain gluon yield and kt dist. • Results depend on input saturation scale s. • Re-scaled to compare to data. • No absolute prediction • But centrality dependence of Nchg and Et reproduced. • But Et /Nchg sensitive to s. Krasnitz,Nara,Venugopalan Nucl. Phys. A717:268, 2003

  19. Saturation & Bottom-up Senario • BMSS start from ~ identical assumptions as KLN but • Qs (b=0)  0.8 GeV. • Argue that resulting value for c, ~ 3, is too large. • Then evaluate what happens to gluons after emission • In particular, gluon splitting, thermalization. • Nchg no longer directly proportional to xG(x,Qs) • Extra factors of s • Agrees with (PHOBOS) data. • Faster decrease at low Npart than in KLN (?) • More reasonable c, c < 1.5 Baier, Mueller, Schiff, and Son Phys. Lett. B502:51, 2001. Baier, Mueller, Schiff, and Son Phys. Lett. B539:46-52, 2002

  20. High-pt Hadron Production • High-pt hadron yield predicted to be suppressed in heavy ion collisions due to radiative energy loss (dE/dx). • Suppression observed in central Au-Au data •  x 5 suppression for pt > 4 GeV • Consistent with calculations including dE/dx. • What does this have to do with low x ? … Ratio: Measured/expected Points: data, lines: theory PHENIX 0 pt spectra No dE/dx Expected with dE/dx Observed

  21. Geometric Scaling @ RHIC ? • Argument • Geometric scaling extends well above Qs • May influence pt spectra at “high” pt • Compare saturation to pQCD at 6, 9 GeV/c • Saturation x3 lower in central collisions. • Partly responsible for high-pt suppression ? • Testable prediction: • Effect ½ as large should be seen in d-Au collisions. • Data in few months … Kharzeev, Levin, McLerran (hep-ph/0210332) Yield per participant pair pQCD saturation

  22. Summary • Saturation models can successfully describe particle multiplicities in HI collisions at RHIC. • With few uncontrolled parameters: Qs(s0), c. • Closest thing we have to ab initio calculation • They provide falsifiable predictions ! • Connect RHIC physics to DIS observables: • s dependence of dN/d  saturation in DIS . • Geometric scaling  high pt production @ RHIC • Already going beyond simplest description • e.g. bottom-up analysis. • But, there are still many issues (e.g.): • What is the value for Qs ? Is it large enough ? • Is Qs really proportional to part (A1/3)? • How is dn/d related to number of emitted gluons ? • How do we conclusively decide that saturation applies (or not) to initial state at RHIC ?

More Related