Dynamical Displaying of Relativistic Substantial Particle Crashes.

Uploaded on:
recommend engaging QGP-based picture of RHIC impact evolu-tion, BUT summon 5 ... pQCD parton E misfortune. The Five Pillars of RHIC Wisdom. Perfect hydro. Quark ...
Slide 1

Dynamical Modeling of Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions Tetsufumi Hirano Work in incompletely coordinated effort with Y.Nara (Frankfurt), M.Gyulassy (Columbia) Workshop at RCNP, Nov 4, 2004

Slide 2

The Five Pillars of RHIC Wisdom Slide from T.Hallman Talk@ICHEP04 ~STAR white paper Ideal hydro Early thermalization + delicate EOS Statistical model Quark recombination  constituent q d.o.f. … propose engaging QGP-based picture of RHIC impact evolu-tion, BUT summon 5 particular models, each with own ambigu-ities, to arrive. u, d, s equil-ibration close T crit pQCD parton E misfortune CGC Very high construed introductory gluon thickness Very high expected beginning gluon thickness

Slide 3

Hydro:  0 , freezeout, help invariance ambigs. Statisticalmodel: equilib\'n or stage space? LQCD: CPU confinements; applic\'y to element matter? Gluon immersion: widespread scale estab-lished? Quark recomb.: prescient force? Parton E misfortune: untested assump-tions Slide from T.Hallman Talk@ICHEP04 ~STAR white paper The State of RHIC Theory An interwoven, with model parameters balanced independ-ently for every component Emerging portrayal of delightful advancement starting with one new condition of matter then onto the next! But, keeping in mind the end goal to depend on hypothesis for convincing QGP disclosure claim, we require: more noteworthy lucidness; less balanced parameters; quantitative assessments of hypothetical vulnerabilities

Slide 4

Hairsplitting Comments from Our Approach How are these predictable with each other? Dialog from hydrodynamic perspective: Hydro versus Measurable model ( fundamental theme ) Hydro versus Recombination model Hydro versus Plane tomography Hydro versus CGC These exchanges will let us know what to do next and lead to a bound together comprehension of HIC.

Slide 5

Today\'s Bad News The elliptic stream at RHIC is "coincidentally" imitated by a hydro model.

Slide 6

Hydro versus Factual Model (1) Statistical model T ch > T th (routine) hydro T ch = T th No propagation of proportion and spectra at the same time Chemical parameters  molecule proportion Thermal parameters  p t spectra

Slide 7

Hydro versus Factual Model (2) P.Huovinen, QM2002 procedures

Slide 8

Hydro versus Factual Model (3) Single T f in Hydro works? Both proportion and spectra? Presentation of compound potential for every hadron! m i

Slide 9

Hydro versus Factual Model (4) EOS Partial compound harmony (PCE) Example of chem. potential T.H. also, K.Tsuda(\'02) Expansion elements is changed (or not)? t

Slide 10

Hydro versus Measurable Model (5) Contour(T=const.) T ( t ) at cause Model CE < v r >( T th ) Model PCE T.H. what\'s more, K.Tsuda(\'02) t

Slide 11

Hydro versus Measurable Model (6) How to settle T th in customary hydro Response to p T slant Spectrum harder as abatement T th Up to how substantial p T ? T th freedom of incline in artificially solidified hydro No approach to alter T th Suggests need of (semi)hard parts Charged hadrons in AuAu 130GeV

Slide 12

Hydro versus Measurable Model (7) P artial C hemical E quilibrium C hemical E quilibrium p Kolb and Heinz(\'04) K p Is v 2 ( p T ) touchy to the late elements? T.H. what\'s more, K.Tsuda (\'02)

Slide 13

Hydro versus Measurable Model (8) Generic component! p d V work + (number)/(entropy) t Slope of v 2 ( p T ) ~ v 2/< p T > Response to diminishing T th (or expanding t ) t

Slide 14

Hydro versus Factual Model (9) Simplest case: Pion gas Longitudinal extension  pdV work! CFO : d S/d y = const. d N/d y = const. < p T > diminishes CE : d S/d y = const. d N/d y diminishes (mass impact) < p T > can increment the length of < E T >d N/d y diminishes. d E T/d y ought to diminish with diminishing T th .  < E T >d N/d y ought to so.

Slide 15

Hydro versus Factual Model (10) PHENIX white paper, nucl-ex/0410003

Slide 16

Hydro versus Measurable Model (11) Choice of T th in routine hydro results from disregarding concoction f.o. The immense cost one needs to pay for "disentanglement"! Significance of synthetic potential for every hadrons inside hydrodynamics "No-Go hypothesis". However you utilize? >90% hydro results at SPS and RHIC don\'t bode well! Synthetic eq. impersonates thick hydro?

Slide 17

Today\'s Good News Currently, hydro+cascade is the main model which recreates the elliptic stream, molecule proportion, and molecule spectra. D.Teaney et al., nucl-th/0110037. Proviso: N eed practical interface and oversampling to dispose of numerical ancient rarities.

Slide 18

Hydro versus Recombination (1) Today, I won\'t talk about (infringement of) vitality protection, diminishing of entropy… reco(Duke) R.J.Fries et al. (\'03) T.H. what\'s more, K.Tsuda (\'02) Half of spiral stream originates from hadron stage in hydro T c =175MeV & v T = 0.55??? Parameter reliance?

Slide 19

Hydro versus Recombination (2) Soft+hard reco is imperative? Innocent thought: Hydro+jet model with recombination by means of string discontinuity Only mass impact T.H.,QM2004 PHENIX "model executioner" plot! nucl-ex/0408007 Pick up a parton from QGP Associated yield 1.7<pT<2.5GeV/c

Slide 20

Hydro versus Plane Tomography (1) T.H. what\'s more, Y.Nara (\'04) I.Vitev, nucl-th/0404052 Input: dN ch/d h Output: Input: R AA Output: reliable?

Slide 21

Hydro versus Plane Tomography (2) Hydrodynamics: Parton thickness Jet tomography: "Shading charge thickness" cf.) Parton thickness in chem. eq. ( N f =3), ( N f =2) > < Not finish chem. eq.!  Need synthetic non-eq. depiction rate eq. for n g and n q

Slide 22

Hydro versus CGC (1) Gluons delivered from two CGC crashes (KLN) Kharzeev and Levin (\'01) T.H. what\'s more, Y.Nara(\'04) E T/N ~ 1.6 GeV Consistent with established Yang Mills on 2D cross section (KNV, Lappi) Inconsistent with exp. information ~0.6GeV

Slide 23

Hydro versus CGC (2) Initial state of hydrodynamic reproductions Gluons delivered from two CGC crashes (KLN) Final (psuedo)rapidity spectra of all hadrons E T/N ~ 1.6 GeV E T/N ~ 1.0 GeV E T/N ~ 0.55 GeV  Consistent with established Yang Mills on 2D cross section (KNV)  Consistent with exp. information ~0.6 GeV This ought to be gotten through non-harmony forms.  Production of entropy Hydrodynamic development  " PdV work" decreases E T/N .

Slide 24

Hydro versus CGC (3) Need a component to decrease E T/N ? E T and/or N Non-harmony depiction is critical. Can we get a short thermalization time (~1fm/c)? Is Boltzmann (elastic+inelastic) adequate for this? If not, may we require non-eq. quantum field approaches?

Slide 25

Summary so far We ought to remember in displaying of HIC: "The right model in the correct spot" premise Time scale Energy/force scale Consistency among models Treatment of interface among models The quantity of parameters/suspicions as little as could be expected under the circumstances

View more...