1 / 32

J/ Y azimuthal anisotropy relative to the reaction plane in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 AGeV/c

J/ Y azimuthal anisotropy relative to the reaction plane in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 AGeV/c. Francesco Prino INFN – Sezione di Torino for the NA50 collaboration. Hard Probes 2008, Illa da Toxa, June 12th 2008. Physics motivation. OUT OF PLANE. IN PLANE.

Télécharger la présentation

J/ Y azimuthal anisotropy relative to the reaction plane in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 AGeV/c

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.


Presentation Transcript

  1. J/Y azimuthal anisotropy relative to the reaction plane in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 AGeV/c Francesco Prino INFN – Sezione di Torino for the NA50 collaboration Hard Probes 2008, Illa da Toxa, June 12th 2008

  2. Physics motivation

  3. OUT OF PLANE IN PLANE Possible sources of J/Y azimuthal anisotropy • Flow (= collective motion superimposed on top of the thermal motion) of c quarks • Conditions: • c quarks are early-thermalized • J/Y formed by c-c recombination at freeze-out • Not likely to occur at SPS energies • Anisotropic (=  dependent) J/Y absorption • cc break-up by QGP hard gluons • Wang, Yuan, PLB540 (2002) 62 • Zhu, Zhuang, Xu, PLB607 (2005) 207 • cc break-up by co-moving particles • Heiselberg, Mattiello, PRC60 (1999) 44902 - - -

  4. Observable: v2 • Anisotropy in the observed particle azimuthal distribution due to correlations between the azimuthal angle of the outgoing particles and the direction of the impact parameter Elliptic flow coefficient

  5. J/Y anisotropy : models • Charmonium break-up on hard gluons present in the deconfined medium • Gluon density azimuthally asymmetric in non central collisions due to the almond shaped overlap region • Sets in when the critical conditions for deconfinement are attained • Measuring J/Y v2 may help to constrain models aimed at explaining the anomalous suppression observed in Pb-Pb • Wang Yuan, Phys. Lett. B540 (2002) 62 • Zhu, Zhuang, Xu, Phys. Lett. B607 (2005) 207

  6. central peripheral J/ azimuthal anisotropy (In-In, NA60) R. Arnaldi, QM2008 • Limited statistics(<30000 J/ events)prevents a fine binning in centrality/pT • Define2 broad centrality classes v2 consistent with zero for central events, v2 > 0 (2.3) for peripheral

  7. Experimental setup

  8. Pb beam Ebeam = 158 GeV/nucleon Beam detectors Pb target in vacuum thickness = 4 mm Centrality detectors EM calorimeter (1.1<hlab<2.3) Multiplicity Detector (1.1<hlab<4.2) Zero Degree Calorimeter (hlab>6.3) Muon spectrometer (2.7<hlab<3.9) toroidal magnet+MWPC+hodoscopes NA50 setup – year 2000 Study of muon pair production in Pb-Pb collisions

  9. Reaction plane estimation • Electromagnetic calorimeter • Measures neutral (g and p0 ) ET • Made of Pb and scintillating fibers • Distance from target: 20 cm • Pseudorapidity coverage: 1.1 < lab < 2.3 • Azimuthal segmentation: 6 (60° wide) sextants • Radial segmentation: 4 rings • Event plane angle Yn= estimator of the reaction plane angle YRP • Exploit anisotropy of produced ET to estimate the reaction plane • n = Fourier harmonic, φi = central azimuth of sextant i, ETi = ET in sextant i

  10. Event plane resolution - method 1 • Monte Carlo simulation of the calorimeter response • Needed input: • Measured v2 of particles in the calorimeter acceptance • Sextant-to-sextant fluctuations (via an effective MC parameter tuned on real data) • Result: • NOTE: event plane resolution in flow analyses usually expressed as: RCF =<cos[2(Y2-YRP)]> called resolution correction factor • RCF = 1 in case of perfect determination of YRP

  11. Event plane resolution - method 2 • Sub-event method • Based on the correlation between the event planes calculated from two halves of the detector (Poskanzer, Voloshin, PRC58 (1998) 62) • Sub-events defined exploiting the radial segmentation of the calorimeter (rings) • Same energy collected in the 2 sub-events • Rapidity gap to limit non-flow correlation between the sub-events • Energy of the excluded ring taken into account when extrapolating to the full calorimeter resolution

  12. Analysis techniques

  13. Analysis strategy • Dimuons under the J/Y mass peak should be properly accounted • Other dimuon sources in J/Y mass range ≈ 5-15% (depending on centrality) • Two kinds of analysis • Azimuthal anisotropy from number of J/Y in bins of azimuthal angle • 2 different methods for subtraction of dimuons under the J/Y peak • Azimuthal anisotropy from Fourier coefficient v2 • 2 different methods to calculate v2

  14. Number of J/Y in azimuthal bins Method 1 = “Fitting” • Build mass spectra of dimuons in bins of: • centrality (ET) • azimuthal angle relative to the event plane (DF2=Fdimu-Y2) • Fit to dimuon mass spectra • 5 components • J/Y, Y’, DY, open charm, combinatorial background • functional forms from Monte Carlo simulations with detailed description of the NA50 setup • 6 free parameters • 4 normalizations + J/Y mass and width • Limited by DY statistics.

  15. Elliptic anisotropy from fitting • Slightly more J/Y’s observed “in plane” • Anisotropy quantified as:

  16. Number of J/Y in azimuthal bins Method 2 = “Counting” • Build ET spectra of Opposite Sign dimuons with 2.9 < M < 3.3 GeV/c2 in bins of azimuthal angle relative to the event plane and subtract: • Combinatorial bckfrom Like Sign dimuons in 2.9 < M < 3.3 GeV/c2 • DYfrom Opposite Sign dimuons in M > 4.2 GeV/c2 • Open Charm from Opposite Sign dimuons in 2.2 < M < 2.6 GeV/c2

  17. Elliptic anisotropy: counting vs. fitting • Good agreement between the 2 analysis methods • Counting analysis (not limited by low DY statistics) allows for more centrality bins

  18. Estimate J/Y v2Method 1 = “Cosine spectra” • Build cos[2(Fdimu-Y2)] spectra of dimuons with 2.9<M<3.3 GeV/c2 in ET (pT) bins • Subtract combinatorial bck, DY and open charm cos[2(Fdimu-Yn)] spectra • Calculate v ’2 • Same formula as v2 but with the measured event plane Y2 instead of the unknown reaction plane YRP • Correct for event plane resolution: • |v2| >= |v’2|

  19. J/Y v2 : from cosine spectra • Positive J/Y v2 • more J/Y’s exiting in plane • Errors: • Error bar = statistical error from J/Y v2’ • (Upper) band = systematic error from event plane resolution

  20. Estimate J/Y vnMethod 2 = “Fit to NJ/Y in azimuthal bins” • Count dimuons in 2.9<M<3.3 GeV/c2 in bins of ET and DF2=Fdimu-Y2 • Subtract combinatorial bck, DY and open charm • Fit with: • dN/dDF2 =A[ 1 + 2 v’2 cos (2·DF2)] (2 free parameters) • Apply resolution correction factor to go from v’2 to v2 Bad quality fit

  21. J/Y v2 : cosine spectra vs. fits • Errors: • Error bar = statistical error from J/Y v2’ • (Upper) band = systematic error from event plane resolution • Good agreement between the two analysis methods

  22. Elliptic anisotropy and v2 vs. pT • No centrality selection • NOTES: • (NIN – NOUT) / (NIN + NOUT) = (p/4) · v2’ • Event plane resolution not accounted for in (NIN – NOUT) / (NIN + NOUT) • Elliptic anisotropy seems to increase with J/Y pT

  23. Conclusions • J/Y anisotropy relative to the reaction plane measured in Pb-Pb collisions at 158 A GeV/c from NA50 experiment • Event plane from azimuthal distribution of neutral transverse energy • Event plane resolution extracted in 2 independent ways: • from Monte Carlo simulations • by adapting the sub-event method to the geometrical segmentation of the NA50 electromagnetic calorimeter • J/Y reconstructed from m+m- decay in the dimuon spectrometer • Elliptic anisotropy results: • Observed a positive (in-plane) J/Y v2 = more J/Y’s “in plane” than “out-of plane” • Observed anisotropy v2 slightly increasing with increasing J/Y pT

  24. Backup

  25. Flow from the NA50 calorimeter • Original method specifically developed for the sextant geometry of the NA50 calorimeter • Fourier expansion of ET azimuthal distribution: • limited to 6 terms because there are 6 sextants • an and bn coefficients calculated with Discrete Fourier Transform: • v2 calculated from a2 and b2 • b3 used to account for statistical fluctuations

  26. Event plane flattening • Event plane azimuthal distribution should be flat (isotropic) • no preferential direction for the impact parameter • Acceptance correction • Flattening by weighting each sextant with the inverse of <ET> measured by that sextant (Poskanzer, Voloshin, PRC58 (1998) 62) • very small correction (practically uniform calorimeter azimuthal acceptance)

  27. Y1 pions Proj. spect. nucleons x z pions Target spect. nucleons y Y2 x Event plane direction • Electromagnetic calorimeter in the backward rapidity region • v1 of pions in the backward region is positive (NA49, WA98) • pions flow in the opposite direction with respect to spectator nucleons • Event plane Y1 directed: • opposite to the direction of spectator nucleons in the backward hemisphere • along the direction of spectator nucleons in the forward hemisphere • v2 of pions in the backward region is positive (NA49, CERES) • event plane Y2 directed in plane

  28. Directed anisotropy v1 • Unexpectedly large directed anisotropy • Excess of J/Y observed opposite to the event plane direction (i.e. negative v1) • Very large systematic error bar coming from the estimation of the resolution of the first order event plane • (Part of) this anti-correlation between J/Y and Y1 directions may be due to momentum conservation effect • Event plane Y1 not corrected for the momentum taken by the J/Y

  29. Cross-checks: shifted ET bins • < cos[2(Fdimu-Y2)] > analysis repeated by shifting the ET bins by half a bin (open circles)

  30. Cross-checks: EZDC centrality bins • EMCALO used both for event plane and for centrality determination • EZDC independent centrality estimator • Similar centrality dependence as from ET analysis • Exclude a bias from centrality selection From <cosDF> peripheral events ( high EZDC ) central events ( low EZDC )

  31. Cross-checks: event-plane flattening • Different choices of flattening the event plane do not change significantly vn’ results From <cosDF> From <cosDF>

  32. J/Y azimuthal distribution • J/Y azimuthal angle from reconstructed muon momenta • azimuthal distribution not flat due to acceptance effects

More Related