Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 1
Experimental Priorities in A+A
•Y=+- 3 test interplay QGP<->CGC ?
•C2(phi1,phi2, pt1,pt2, eta1,eta2; fl1,fl2, Mult, A,B, Ecm)
•Heavy Quark tomography
•Open Charm (enhancement?); J/Psi (suppression?)• Charm Flow?
• Direct Photons thermometer• Tagged direct photon -quark jets!
•Turn Ecm~20-200 and A=1-100 exp. knobs
exp. knobs6D microscope
(MG 15.05.2004 @ RBRC Discoveries at RHIC Workshop)
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 2
Physics of high pT Correlations in A+A
Miklaz Gyulassy ITP/FIAS/GSIMay 19, 2008
1. Why Single Inclusive remains Inconclusive2. Hints of “Mach Cone” minijet correlations and YIAM unhappy with ZYAM3. Astrophysical Jets and correlation lessons4. Three dynamics scenarios to trace the Head + Neck + Plume + Mach wake away side jet correlation problem in A+A
1. Rischke Bow shocks2. Anti de Sitter space g shocks3. Space-like elastic shocks
(intermediate)^
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 3
Why Inclusive jet tomography is still Inconclusive
Electron data seems to falsify pQCD HQ dynamics unless b production is suppressed
(i.e. RHIC is charming but not beautiful)
Bothc+b
conly
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 4
Away side jet correlations and ZYAM
With an reasonable but untested assumption
that the tiny 1% correlations observed arise from the sum of only two terms 1) Elliptic flow and 2) Jet-medium
And the assumption that there exists an angle where 2 vanishes
ZYAM
S.Padre, TX
Is this a real Mach Cone or an Experimental artifact or perhaps another dynamic source, e.g. radial flow ?
MachCone?
PHENIX
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 5
J.W. GoetheTests of ZYAM prescription Stefan Kniege
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 6
Mapping out the jet correlation landscape: A Perspective from PHENIX experiment. Jiang-yong Jia Int.J.Mod.Phys.E16:3058,2008
1) Two component Model
2) Fit a0: CAB(min)=0
[MG] Why is broad away side correlation so weakly dependent on beam energy?1. Bulk elliptic flow is much less perfect at SPS2. True high pT pQCD jet physics is suppressed at SPS kinematics3. The minijet pt< 3 GeV range is swamped by non-jet semi-soft coalesence
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 7
(1/N
trig)
dN/d
()
STAR Preliminary
p+p Au+Au 5%trig4 6 GeV/c
0.15 4 GeV/cT
T
p
p
Fit to near side: const. + gaussian + Borghini-cos(fixed)
stat. mom. conserv.Borghini et al.
free fit
stat. mom. conserv.Borghini et al.
A thermal fluctuated large pT particle (or a mono-jet) would produce an away side excess due to momentum conservation.
the away side excess approaches equilibration with the medium, consistent with the pT spectra results.
• near side is mostly a jet, and initially no mono-jet at mid-rapidity.• the final state away excess has a similar shape to a stat. distr. from momentum conservation.
Fuqiang Wang, Quark Matter 2004
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 8
I am unhappy with ZYAM (assumed Zero Yield At Minimum)
Because 1% errors on the magnitude of an assumed independent “Background” (The sQGP signal !!)
produces a factor of 2 variation of the azimuthal correlationsshape relative to a flat C() near
The “Mach” signal is tiny ~ 1% in correlation func
Systematic errors need To be much better controlled
Recent progress by McCumber (PHENIX) is an attempt to measure background level, but even then the Assumption of two independent Jet+QGP sources is dubious
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 9
II: Basic Physics of Jet induced Mach Cone and other dynamical correlations
3) Nuclear Mach cones
4) Astrophysical Mach Cones
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 10
H. Stoecker
From Nuclear Mach Cone Theory 1973
M
To RHIC Discoveries 2004 :nucl-th/0406018
Any supersonic probeLeads to a Mach-wakeCorrelation component
Cos M=vs/v
(But also to probe dependent other components e.g. bow shocks if probe is compressible)
Bow shockof compressed matter
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 11
Head
BowShock
Primary Mach Wake
Beam “Plume”
Shear Cocoon
2nd Mach
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 12
ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI AND INTERGALACTIC JETS
http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/hydrodynamics_realm/index.html
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 13
Toy model of conical flow induced by heavy-quark jets
F. Antinori, E.V. Shuryak, J.Phys.G31:L19,2005.
Trigger Jet
“Mach
Wake
”
NonHydroHead
“Diffusion Plume”
Observed Angular and spectral distribution
Is a superposition
dN/ddpTd = Mach wake + Diffusion Plume + + Flowing Bulk sQGP + Jet Head + Neck
Sound
cs t
Casaderrey-S, Teaney, Shuryak hep-ph/0602183
J.Noronha, B. Betz, G. Torrieri, MG (08)
Head/Neck
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 14
My Texas Red Neck Model of Soft Headed Mach Cones
=
Soft Head ! Red Neck
MachAngleDiffusion
Plume
http://www.thechickenfishspeaks.com/Photos/fashion%20fun-Red%20Neck.jpg
Unlike Hard Bullets !
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 15
Part III Dynamic Models of Mach + Head Correlations
1) Perfect Fluids sourced by dE/dx and dP/dx (Betz, et al QM08)2) g2Nc/4>> 1 AdS predicts Mach wakes are filled if Neck+Head are Cooper-Fryed (Noronha,Betz,Torieri,MG)3) g2Nc/4<< 1 pQCD jet Radiative energy loss also predicts no large angle Mach (Vitev)4) Even space-like elastic en-mom loss is dominated by forward Head freezeout
?) Could Machs be radial flow deflected tangent jets? (Pruneau,Voloshin,Gavin)
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 16
Jet Induced correlations in Ideal Relativistic Hydro Betz, et al QM08
Bow ShockNo Bow Shock !
Dropped pebbles model Radiative or Elastic En~Mom
Loss scenarios
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 17
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 18
pTobs=4 GeV
E ~ Pz
Only for
Confirms that non Mach wake sources (Plume+Neck+head) dominateCorrelation pattern
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 19
Ulery QM08
Mach Cones in infinite coupled SYM Plasmas via the AdS/CFT conjecture Heavy Quark String Drag Picture
HeadNeck
2006-Herzog et alGubser et alYaffe et al
You are here X
Inside BH
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 20
For “realistic” parameters AdS/String Mach+Diffusion wake disturbance remains small ~10% relative to “background” SYM Except in Head+Neck r < 2/T Bow Shock zone region
The Gubser,Pufu,Yarom AdS drag numerical solution
=5.5 =6
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 21
Flow velocity field is also small v < 0.1 even for vQ=0.9cExcept in Head +Neck region
Only Head region has v>0.1
BowShock
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 22
Near Zone Navier-Stokes Analysis of Heavy Quark Jet Quenching in an N =4 SYMJorge Noronha, Giorgio Torrieri, MG, hep-ph 0712.1053
Use Yarom’s analytic near field solution to investigate the breakdown of Navier Stokes.Conclusion: “Head Zone” |x| < 2/T ~ 0.5 fm is nonthermal !
Knudsen number
Pressure Anisotropy
Vjet=0.99 c
x1=(x-vt)/T
K(x1,r)
Px/Pz
r =
x T/
T
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 23
Kc~11 T
Acausality forShort wavelength
< 0.5 /T
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 24
To convert AdS T(x) stress information into Hadron angular and spectral intensities
In AdS ~ static SYM plasma assume an isochronous freeze-out
We used full numerical AdS solution of Gubser, Pufu, Yarom(http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.4307) with Causal and Head cuts
Causa
l cut
Head/Neck cut
RH
Plume cut
0
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 25
T=200 T=250
T=3001) Even Mach wake leads to no dip Due to thermal smearing !!
2) All AdS azimuthal “machlike” signal comes from Head+Neck regions where local equilib is however unjustified !!
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 26
RHead=1.0 /T0 RHead=0.5 /T0
Sensitivity of Head Dip to its Boundary definition
Quantitative prediction for pT dependence ofMach like correlation structure requires nonequilibriumDynamical modeling beyond scope of Dissipative Hydro
e.g. via detailed radiative, elastic parton transport (Zhu+Greiner)
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 27
Part N+1: Non-Mach wake azimuthal dip mechnisms
Radial flow induced tangent jet deflections
AMPT elastic parton correlations
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 28
FIG. 2: (Color online) Two-particle azimuthal correlations obtained with a di-jet toy model assuming Gaussian azimuthal profile and flat radial boost profiles - described in the text.
Transverse Radial Flow Effects on Two- and Three-Particle Angular Correlations
Claude A. Pruneau, Sean Gavin , and Sergei A. Voloshi
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 29
Generic theory problem:D.Molnar,MG (NPA697,2002)Transport models that get v2 rightUnderpredict RAA and pT tails
AMPTTransportZPC/ART
v2
RAA1
.2
Sensitivity To Hadronization+ Hadrotransport
(Non CFT)
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 30
Summary:
1) High pT correlations provide a very important sensitive test of the micro dynamics that is however complex to deconvolute
2) Current hydrodynamic, String drag model, radiative and elastic energy loss models proposed to explain the data are still inadequate
and need substantial further refinement.
3) Alternate simpler explanation like radial flow
should be investigated by professional transport codes
(Molnar, Xu+Greiner)
4) Three particles should be tackled only after the two particles
without ZYAM are under control
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 31
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 32
AdS/CFT Drag assumes:
SYM plasma QCD plasma
~ 30
~ 15
0.15
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 33
Recent Advances in 2nd order AdS/Hydro
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 34
Generically, such a metric (we will denote it by g(0)(b(xμ), βi(xμ)) is not a solution to Einstein’s equations.
if all derivatives of the parameters b(xμ) and βi(xμ) are small, is locally well approximated by a boosted black brane.
Local boosted black brane metric solves Einstein provided the functions b(xμ) and βi(xμ) obey a set of equations of motion, which turn out simply to be the equations of boundary fluid dynamics
The expansion parameter is 1/LT where L is the scale of gradients of the parameters and T is the Hawking Temperature of the Black Brane
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 35
Conclusions:
1) Mach Cones or Away Side Dips are very generic phenomena, but interpretation in AA is nontrivial due to Multi-source (nonZYAM) contributions to azimuthal yields
Yield()= Mach+Plume+Neck+Head+sQGP
2) AdS/CFT is most sophisticated beyond-hydro dynamicalModel that features all the above in one self consistent framework
3) Unfortunately, most of the interesting azimuthal signal is generated by the non-equilibrium Neck + Head r < 2/T region !!
4) Other , e.g. Radial + Longitudinal Flow, effects may actually dominate signals of tiny 2 and 3 particle associated observables
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 36
Goal:Separate into 1) Mach (r > 3/pT , x1< - 3/pT)2) Diffusion Plume (r < 3/pT , x1< - 3/pT)3) Head Components
Cooper-Fryeing AdS/CFT Stress for azimuthal correlations (BNTG08)
GPY Temp FieldFor =5.5 Nc=3 T0=300
GPY Flow v FieldFor =5.5 Nc=3 T0=300
Note T ~ 5 MeVOutside NonequilibHead
Note v ~ 0.05 cOutside Head
Head
Head
Input
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 37
In rigorous Nc =Infinity , stress perturbation is very very small andLinearized Navier Stokes hydro is ok, BUT at the phenomenological price ofNegligible signal strength !!! We use “realistic”=5.5 and Nc=3 to get estimates
Damped sound
Transverse Diffusion
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 38
PHENIX: Reaction Plane Angle Dependence(2)
– For PHENIX reaction plane resolution & chosen bin sizes, trig bin 4 has smallest flow effects.
– Even without subtracting flow contribution, a dip is seen for central collisions.
Look in bin #4
PHENIX Preliminary
Cole QM05
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 39
PHENIX Results
• 3-particle/2-particle ~ 1/3, very large– Residual background?
v2 subtracted Au+Au 10-20%
v2 and 2-particle subtracted
* Projections
v2 subtracted
2-particle dominated2-particle dominated
Mach-cone
Deflected
• Shape consistent with simulated mach-cone.
PRL 97, 052301 (2006)
PHENIX
Ajitanand HP06, IWCF’06 Ajitanand QM08 Poster 243
J.Ulery QM08, sld 16
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 40
the mere notion of there being “an underlying event over which the jet develops” is incorrect. The jet does distort the event to which it belongs, it is not merely embedded in it as is done in many simulations.
Momentum conservation and correlation analyses in heavy-ion collisions at ultrarelativistic energies.
Nicolas Borghini Phys.Rev.C75:021904,2007.
It is a quantitative questionJust how deep is the induced Mom conservation dip
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 41
PHENIX: Reaction Plane Angle Dependence
– Study (di)jet correlations vs angle of trigger hadron relative to reaction plane
• J. Bielcikova et al, Phys. Rev. C69:021901, 2004
trig = trig - • 6 bins from 0 to /2.
– Flow systematics change
completely vs trig
– Can study dependence of distortion on geometry.
Shoulder and dip seen
in all trig bins.
trig
?
From Poster by J. Jia
Cole QM05
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 42
00,1,12
2/32
2 22
trx jete
dx
dEJ
Isentropic excitations: No entropy production. Medium excitation by sound wave emission..
Non-isentropic excitations: the main excitation mechanism is entropy production and the flow field introduces vorticity.
Jet- Fluid Coupling Mechanisms
xJT
txJxddt
dP,3
Depostion/thermaliztion process
An integral constraint on J
ANY Function with zero integral !
Jet En-Mom Source for associated hydro evolution:
+
Scenario 1: Scenario 2:
Jorge Casalderrey-Solana QM06
The source is not unique and depends on non-equilibrium transport dynamics outside hydro framework
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 43
The Non Isentropic Scenario gives No Mach after Cooper-Frying
2010 Tpt
fm
GeV
dx
dE6.12
fm
GeV
dx
dE2
Diffuson flow along jet direction
No Mach angle correlation
Chaudhuri & Heinz: No luck either with their IC guesses
dN/dyd
This most natural Jet source pushes more fluid matter forwardthan to the side! A bummer.
Jorge Casalderrey-Solana QM06
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 44
Scenario II: Isentropic Jet Source
For Static Medium need
Large dE/dx12 Gev/fm
The correlations develops as passoc
T increases
The tiny magnitude of the correlation decreases exponentially.
Expanding medium need Only dE/dx1.5 Gev/fm
(dilution of the medium)
51 Tpt
105 Tpt
1510 Tpt
2015 Tpt
3
1arccos
dN
/dyd
Can be engineered to produce a Mach-like Dip At for high pt associated similar to data
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 45
Try Jet Shock Heating or Pebble Dropping
1 Fluid Jet Shock +Medium Pebbles r=1.6 fm dropped in Medium
Engineered “Mach Cone”
From the Frankfurt Hydro Club: B. Betz, G. Torrieri, E. Molnar , …, MG
Both scenarios again look promising forJet Mach Cone production, but …
(T0=338 MeV)
(see also B. Betz talk)Scenario 3: Scenario 4:
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 46
Entropy Producing Jet shock heating Jet pebbles dropped into sQGP pond
Pre-Cooper-Frye Pre-Cooper-Frye
cs
Mach-ishBut not cs !
No hint Of Mach!
Cooper-FryedCooper-Fryed
p=40 p=40
30
20
30
Cos Cos
Scenario 3: Scenario 4:
FinallyA Mach cone
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 47
Gyulassy, ITP
5/19/08- 48
