low energy scan and collective flow at 9 gev
DESCRIPTION
Low energy scan and collective flow at 9 GeV. Jiayun Chen , Feng Liu, Shusu Shi, Kejun Wu. Weihai , Aug. 9,2009. Outline. Motivation Collectivity from STAR at 9.2GeV MC Simulation at 9 GeV Summary and Outlook. Motivation. QM09 : SS Shi (STAR Collaboration). QCD Phase diagram. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Low energy scan and collective flow at 9 GeV
Jiayun Chen , Feng Liu, Shusu Shi, Kejun Wu
Weihai , Aug. 9,2009
2
Outline
Motivation
Collectivity from STAR at 9.2GeV
MC Simulation at 9 GeV
Summary and Outlook
3
Motivation
RHIC beam energy scan program :
----- Search for critical point.
----- Draw the QCD phase boundary.
QCD Phase diagramCro
ss o
ver
At RHIC:(1) pT-NQ scaling
(2) partonic collectivity
(3) deconfinement
hot and dense matter with partonic collectivity has been formed at RHIC
QM09 : SS Shi (STAR Collaboration)
4
Access to large range of and T
Beam Energy Scan (BES) at RHIC + SPS + FAIR
RHIC:
advantage of collider mode !
At fixed target geometry:
detector acceptance changes with energy
track density at mid-y increases fast with energy
-> technical difficulties in tracking
Motivation
9.2 GeV 9.2 GeV
Collider Acceptance
√sNN
6 GeV
17 GeV
√sNN = 9.2 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC
Fix
-tar
get
Mod
e N
A49
C
ollid
er M
ode
ST
AR
6
RHIC run 10 (fall 2009)
sNN [pft]
GeV [GeV/c]
B
[MeV]<BBC Rate>
[Hz]
Days/
Mevent
# events # beam days
4.6 [9.6] 570 3 9 5M 45
6.3 [18.8] 470 7 4 5M 20
7.6 [27.9] 410 13 2 5M 10
8.8 [37.7] 380 20 1.5 5M 7.5
12 [71.0] 300 54 0.5 5M 2.5
18 [161] 220 >100 0.25 5M 1.5
28 [391] 150 >100 0.25 5M 1.5
(1) Large energy range accessible(2) Collider geometry (acceptance won’t change with S, track density varies slowly)(3) STAR detectors well suited (large acceptance), tested & understood
STAR PAC 2007 Strawman proposal:
Note: NA61 @ CERN (starting in 2010): 10, 20, 30, 40, 80, 158 GeV/c
7
STAR TPC image of 9 GeV Au+Au, taken on June 7, 2007 (run 8158119, ev.44), figure from Jeff Langraf
2001: 19.6 GeV Au+Au2004: 22.4 GeV Cu+Cu2007: 9 GeV Au+Au
observed apparent rates of collisions surprisingly high (?!)
to do: (1) understand background
(2) optimize triggering
STAR experience with Low Energy RHIC running
Collectivity from STAR at 9.2GeV
8
STAR Experiment and Collisions at Ecm= 9.2 GeV
Excellent Particle IdentificationCollisions recorded in STAR TPC
Analysis based on ~ 3000 good events collected at ~ 0.7 Hz in year 2008
PID will further strengthen with the completion of ToF
9
Azimuthal Anisotropy - Directed Flow
v1 vs. η show different trend between the high and low energy because that the spectator rapidity decreases with incident energy
QM09 Poster : Jiayun Chen (STAR Collaboration)
11
Azimuthal Anisotropy - Elliptic Flow
QM08 Lokesh Kumar for STAR
With TOF, the pt region will be extended to a higher value.
Important to perform the v2 scaling analysis.
v1 in AMPT
• low energy: – the default AMPT with low-NTMAX consistent with the
STAR results.– The melting AMPT seems difficult to describe the data.
QM09 Poster : Jiayun Chen
13
MC Simulation at 9 GeV V2 of all Charged Hadrons
About 3231k, 862k, 4370k and 4507k events are used for minibias calculations at UrQMD v2.3 , RQMD v2.4, AMPT v2.1 with string melting and default.
v2 : AMPT with melting > AMPT default > UrQMD >RQMD.
Partonic reactions enhance hadrons v2 !
v2 value at AMPT with melting is about equal to the default at center rapidity, but much larger v2 at high rapidity area – connection to the observed RIDGE:
Early partonic interactions are important!
Only 3k good events for experimental data.
Difficult to say which MC model is best suitable.
MC vs. Experimental data
15
v2 NQ Scaling in AMPT
Only for AMPT with string melting
like hydrodynamic behavior
mass ordering at pT<1.2GeV/c
Obvious hadrons type dependence: NQ Scaling at
pT>1.2GeV/c
Crossing and subsequent splitting between meson and baryon at pT~1.2GeV/c
Why is the v2 NQ scaling presented in the AMPT with string melting?
Difference for two AMPT versions
Quark coalescence mechanism leads to v2 NCQ scaling
Zi-Wei Lin,Che Ming Ko,etc., Phys.Rev.C 72,064901(2005),
“Multiphase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions ”
Default AMPT
The breaking of v2 NQ scaling. The partons cross section almost doesn’t affect v2 value.
AMPT with string melting
The excellent v2 NQ scaling. Large partons cross section leads to strong v2.
The strength of the final hadron v2 is directly related to the partons cross section!
Partons Cross Section vs. Hadrons v2
The broken NQ scaling behavior maybe indicates the phase transition from dominant partonic to hadronic matter!
v2 in RQMD and UrQMD
The v2 NQ scaling may not be the unique feature of quark coalescence !
Hadronic interactions -> rough v2 NQ scaling
The same v2 NQ scaling as AMPT with SM.
may be statistical fluctuation?
(no light quark component)
is very important for studying the medium properties.
KK
ss dominant partonic matter
dominant hadronic matter
v2 from KKbar fusion will not obey the v2 NQ scaling.
Additive Quark Model
cross section only depends on the quark-content of the colliding hadrons
3/2
21
039.0
)4.01)(4.01()3
2(40
totel
ssntot xxM
Color Strings and ropes -excitation and -fragmentation
MhqhBhqqhBhqh 2
1,
3
2,
3
1
dtyxAdpyxtppv tt tt ),(),,,(),()(2
denotes the hyper-surface where hadrons are emitted.In the low pt region, frequent rescatterings among hadrons can lead to hydrodynamic-like mass ordering.
In the higher pt region (pt>1.5GeV/c), particles early freeze out and lack the hydrodynamics development, and the details of the interaction cross-sections are most important.
elliptic flow:
Where does v2 NCQ Scaling Come from?
3
2
B
M
3
2
B
M
Y.Lu,F.Liu,N.Xu.etc., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 32 (2006) 1121–1129,
K. Goulianos, Phys.Rep.101,169(1983),“Diffractive interactions of hadrons at high energies ”
S.A.Bass, M.Belkacem,etc., Nucl-th/9803035, “Microscopic Models for Ultrarelativistic Heavy Ion Collisions”
The hadronic cross sections in UrQMD can been parameterized by AQM.
20
Summary and Outlook
STAR will measure : yields and particle ratios T vs
particle spactra (pt, rapidity, …),
strangeness production (K/, multistrange, …),
fluctuations and correlations
flow (v1,v2,v4, …) with charged and identified particles,
HBT radii, …
Search for : - disappearance of partonic activities
- onset of critical phenomena: fluctuations, correlations
1) turn on and off signature of de-confinement (QGP)
2) High statistics is required for v2 in the further experiments.
The unique RHIC energy scan program will map the QCD diagram in sNN =5-50 GeV, (corresponding to μB ~ 600-150 MeV)
Thank you
22
sNN (GeV) for Au+Au # weeks in 25-cryoweek scenario # weeks in 30-cryoweek scenario
200 10 10
62.4 4 4
39 1.5 1.5
27 2.5 4.5
18 0 1.5
11.5 2.0 2.5
7.7 0 1.0
23
Azimuthal Anisotropy - Directed Flow
v1 vs. η show different trend between the high and low energy because that the spectator rapidity decreases with incident energy
QM09 Poster : Jiayun Chen (STAR Collaboration)
Difference for two AMPT versions
Quark coalescence mechanism leads to v2 NCQ scaling
Energy scan of v1 at RHIC energy
• Centrality dependence:– high energy: clearly
dependence– lower energy: seems to be
weaker• V1(y) of charged particle
from AMPT seems consistent with the RHIC data in sharp– high energy: melting AMPT– low energy: default AMPT
• The directed flow wiggle from peripheral to central:– high energy: more clearly
transformation– low energy: weak effect by
centrality but clearly wiggle• The direction of v1 seems
consistent in different energy in mid-rapidity.
Motivation
flow
antiflow
Brachmann, Soff, Dumitru, et. al. , PRC 61 (2000) 024909.L.P. Csernai, D. Roehrich PLB 458, 454 (1999) M.Bleicher and H.Stocker, PLB 526,309(2002)
Anti-flow/3rd flow component, with QGP v1 flat at middle rapidity.
Directed flow (v1) and phase transition