LHC Prague’09M. J. Tannenbaum 1/54 Hard and Soft Physics at RHIC with implications for LHC M. J....

LHC Prague’09 M. J. Tannenbaum 1/54

Hard and Soft Physics at RHIC Hard and Soft Physics at RHIC with implications for LHCwith implications for LHC

M. J. TannenbaumBrookhaven National Laboratory

Upton, NY 11973 USA

4th International Workshop High pT physics at LHC, Prague ’09 The Emauzy Abby, Prague, Czech Rep. February 4-7 , 2009


p-p collisions at RHIC: p-p collisions at RHIC: 00 production (PHENIX) production (PHENIX)

€

e−5.6 pT

No surprise (to me) that NLO pQCD agrees with dataPRD76(2007)051006(R)

s=200 GeV

New PRD79(2009)012003

s=62.4 GeV


CCR at the CERN-ISRCCR at the CERN-ISRDiscovery of high pDiscovery of high pTT 00 production in p-p production in p-p

• e-6pT breaks to a power law at high pT with characteristic s dependence• Large rate indicates that partons interact strongly (>> EM) with other.• Data follow xT=2pT/s scaling but with neff=8!, not neff=4 as expected for QED

F.W. Büsser, et al., CERN, Columbia, Rockefeller Collaboration Phys. Lett. 46B, 471 (1973)

Bjorken scaling PR179(1969)1547 BermanBjKogut scaling PRD4(71)3388 Blankenbecler, Brodsky, Gunion xT=2pT/s Scaling PL 42B, 461 (1972)

neff gives the form of the force-law between constituents: neff=4 for QED


CCOR 1978--Discovery of CCOR 1978--Discovery of “REALLY high p“REALLY high pTT>7 GeV/c” at ISR>7 GeV/c” at ISR

CCOR A.L.S. Angelis, et al, Phys.Lett. 79B, 505 (1978)

neff=5 (=4++) as predicted for QCD

QCD: Cahalan, Geer, Kogut, Susskind, PRD11, 1199 (1975)

8

5


1978-n1978-neffeff(x(xTT, , s) WORKS ns) WORKS neffeff5=45=4++++

C.Kourkoumelis, et al Phys.Lett. 84B, 279 (1979)

cross sections vary by factor of 2

But n(xT,s) agrees

A.Adare, et al, PHENIX PRD79 (2009) 012003


ISR ISR 00 vs RHIC p-p vs RHIC p-p RHIC pp vs AuAu RHIC pp vs AuAu

Nuclear Modification Factor

0 are suppressed in Au+Au eg 200 GeV

€

RAA ( pT ) = d2NAAπ /dpT dyNAA

inel

TAA d2σ ppπ /dpT dy0 invariant cross section in p-p at s=200 GeV

is a pure power law for pT > 3 GeV/c, n=8.10.1

p+p


62.4 GeV-the importance of comparison data62.4 GeV-the importance of comparison data

Similar R0AA at 62.4 and 200 GeV

(for pT > 6 GeV/c) in Central Au+Au

Best guess-wrong!!

PRD79 012003

Black points use best guess/fit to ISR 62.4 GeV data. Red points use our own new measurement PRD79 (2009)012003

Correct plot of R0AA 62.4 vs 200 GeV

Problem is much worse at LHC as there is no existing comparison data--Vital to measure p+p at same s (or above and below) as A+A


Suppression of Suppression of 00 is arguably the major is arguably the major discovery at RHIC. Energy loss in medium?discovery at RHIC. Energy loss in medium?Au Au sNN=200 GeV-QM 2005

0 suppressed by a factor of 5 compared to point-like scaling for 3< pT< 20 GeV/c! Non-identified h and 0 are different for pT< 6 GeV/c particle ID is important.

Original 0 discovery, PHENIX PRL 88 (2002)022301; latest 0 PRL 101 (2008) 232301

€

RAA ( pT ) = d2NAAπ /dpT dyNAA

inel

TAA d2σ ppπ /dpT dy Suppression is unique at RHIC-different

from low sNN (22.4 < sNN < 62.4 GeV)

CuCu central 10% 0RAA vs sNNPHENIX, PRL 101 (2008) 162301


NA50 at SPS (0<y<1)PHENIX at RHIC (|y|<0.35)

Bar: uncorrelated errorBracket : correlated errorGlobal error = 12% is not shown

• RAA vs. Npart integrated over pT

NA50 at SPS

• 0<y<1 PHENIX at RHIC

• |y|<0.35

BUT-J/BUT-J/ Suppression (R Suppression (RAAAA) is the ) is the samesame at at mid-rapidity (PHENIX emid-rapidity (PHENIX e++ee--) as at lower ) as at lower ssNNNN!!!!!!

PHENIX PRL 98, 232301 (2007)

This was CERN-Heavy Ion’s main claim to fame in the infamous press conference of 2000 claiming observations ``consistent with the predicted signatures of a QGP.’’ Will have to wait for LHC to find out whether J/ merely act like ordinary hadrons low pT or whether they are actually probes of deconfinement as predicted by Matsui and Satz PLB178(1986)416. Also see discussion by MJT in Rep.Prog.Phys. 69 (2006)2005

Au+Au


Good Betting Opportunity at LHCGood Betting Opportunity at LHC

Will Peter Higgs or Will Peter Higgs or Helmut Satz have to Helmut Satz have to wait longer to find wait longer to find

whether they are right?whether they are right?


The 2The 2ndnd major discovery at RHIC-ID’d particles major discovery at RHIC-ID’d particles

2) xT scaling in AuAu 200 cf 130 GeV showed 0 xT scale Energy loss scales. h do not xT scale the baryon anomaly

1)h and 0 behave differently at intermediate pT 2--6 GeV/c

PHENIX PR C 69, 034910 (2004)

Discovery-PHENIX PRL 88 (2002) 022301

p/ ratio much larger than from jet fragmentation: The Baryon Anomaly-still not understood

ps: If this is ‘recombination’ QGP: Fries,Muller, Nonaka PRL 90 202303 (2003)

PHENIX PRL 91(2003) 172301


xxTT scaling scaling ssNNNN=200/130 AuAu shows h=200/130 AuAu shows h are anomalous are anomalous

• 0 xT scales in both peripheral and central Au+Au with same value of neff=6.3 as in p-p. Indicates that structure and fragmentation fns. (including any energy loss) scale in AuAu i.e. energy loss is fractional. Note: a constant fractional energy loss and a power law spectrum implies that RAA=constant as observed!

• (h+ + h-)/2 xT scales in peripheral same as p-p but difference between central and peripheral is significant

PHENIX, PRC 69, 034910 (2004)

neff=6.3 from 2004 agrees with neff=6.38 in 2009


Baryon Anomaly Ratios different from `Bulk’ Baryon Anomaly Ratios different from `Bulk’

ps: If this is ‘recombination’ QGP: Fries,Muller, Nonaka PRL 90 202303 (2003)

PHENIX PRL 91(2003) 172301 M. Kaneta, N. Xu nucl-th/0405068

Bulk particle ratios at midrapidity and thermal model for Au+Au central at sNN=200 GeV

p/ ratio much larger than from jet fragmentation or bulk: The Baryon Anomaly-still not understood

Bulk p/ ratio~9%


Baryon Anomaly at RHIC is not explainedBaryon Anomaly at RHIC is not explained

RAA A

u+Au

cen

tral

0-

12%

PHENIX PRC 71(2005) 051902(R) 2.4<pTt<4 GeV/c 1.7< pTa<2.5 GeV/c

Trigger mesons and baryons in the region of the baryon anomaly both show the same trigger (near) side and away side jet structure. This ‘kills’ the elegant recombination model of the baryon anomaly.

STAR QM08 JPG35(2008)104006

RpAA>R

AA pT>6 GeV/c, maybe 12. Could this be formation time effect? For some bizarre reason STAR thinks gqqq is preferred to gq so worries why Rp

AA isn’t < R

AA. PHENIX would like to check this measurement. €

q


Other Candidate ExplanationsOther Candidate Explanations• Cuautle-Paic, JPG 35(2008) 075103--Radial Flow explains the

effect. • But I ask what is flowing: when are protons formed? Do they flow in

QGP or in hadron gas after phase transition? • Formation time (distance) =R=R*p/m where R is the radius of the

particle =0.5fm (), 0.8 fm (p). So a 2 GeV/c travels 0.5fm *2/0.14=7fm (exits QGP) before forming while an 8.2 GeV/c proton forms in 0.8*8.2/0.94=7fm; so forms inside QGP for pT< 8.2 GeV/c. And colorless protons do not interact in a color charged medium, right? Answer is different if Compton =0.2GeVfm/m=1.4fm (), 0.2 fm (p) is used instead of physical radius R. Theorists, help!

• STAR RpAA needs to be checked by PHENIX

LHC could contribute here with pid out to 20 GeV/c

For other formation time effects, see Bialas, Gyulassy, NPB291(1987)793


Direct photon production-simple theory hard experimentDirect photon production-simple theory hard experiment

See the classic paper of Fritzsch and Minkowski, PLB 69 (1977) 316-320

q

qg

q

q g

isolatedphotons

Compton

Annihilationsmall-ignore

Analytical formula for -jet cross section for a photon at pT, yc (and parton (jet) at pT, yd):

fg(x) and F2(x) are g and q pdf’s in nuclei A,B

yc

yd


Experimental problem is HUGE background from Experimental problem is HUGE background from 00, , , etc. , etc. But this is less of a problem in Au+Au due to suppression of But this is less of a problem in Au+Au due to suppression of 00

€

Rγ

x (1.19)=0.335

/0=0.50

PHENIX PRL94 (2005) 232301


Direct Direct 's in p-p 's in p-p s=200 GeV: Data vs. pQCD s=200 GeV: Data vs. pQCD

Published results 3<pT<15 GeV/c

PHENIX PRL 98 (2007) 012002

p-pp-p

Preliminary results for 5<pT<24 GeV/c


Direct Direct 's in p-p are Isolated 's in p-p are Isolated

Frac

tion

of in

clus

ive

phot

on s

pect

rumPHENIX PRL 98 (2007) 012002

Fragmentation photons <10% of direct for pT > 6 GeV/c in agreement with GRV


P. Aurenche et al Phys. Rev. D 73, 094007 (2006)

PHENIX direct photon p-p data

clarifies longstanding

data/theory puzzle

Comparison with other p-p data and pQCDComparison with other p-p data and pQCD

PHENIX PRL 98 (2007) 012002


<TAB>

2004--Direct Photons in Au+Au 200 GeV: follow T2004--Direct Photons in Au+Au 200 GeV: follow TABAB scaling from p-p for all centralities-no suppressionscaling from p-p for all centralities-no suppression

2)Direct photons unaffected by QCD medium in Au+Au

0 suppression is medium effect

1) Proves that initial state Au structure function is simply a superposition of p-p structure functions including g(x).

PHENIX PRL94 (2005) 232301

gAu+Au

Centrality


QM2005-direct QM2005-direct in AuAu via internal in AuAu via internal conversionconversion

Kroll Wada PR98(1955) 1355 q

g q

e+e-PHENIX NPA774(2006)403

Eliminating the 0 background by going to 0.2<mee<0.3 GeV enables direct signal to be signal to be measured for 1<pmeasured for 1<pTT <3 GeV/c in Au+Au. It is exponential, does that mean it is thermal. We <3 GeV/c in Au+Au. It is exponential, does that mean it is thermal. We must see whether p-p direct must see whether p-p direct turns over as p turns over as pTT 0 as in Drell-Yan or exponential like for 0 as in Drell-Yan or exponential like for 0

= Kroll-Wada


QM2008 QM2008 direct direct in p-p via internal conversion in p-p via internal conversion

μ = 0.5pT

μ = 1.0pT

μ = 2.0pT

Lowest pT direct ever measured in p-p (and Au+Au). Curves are pQCD extrapolated (W.Vogelsang)

This is a major discovery, p-p result turns over as pT0, follows the same function B(1+pT

2/b)-n used in Drell Yan [Ito, et al, PRD23, 604 (1981)] . Fit to Au+Au is [A e-pT/T + TAA Bpp(1+pT

2/bpp)-npp]. Significance of exponential (thermal?) is > 3

arXiv:0804.4168v1


Direct Direct with respect to the reaction plane with respect to the reaction planeTurbide, Gale & Fries, PRL 96 (2006) 032303 predict that if jet(parton) suppression is due to g+q-->g+q (+g) in the medium then the reaction g+q--> +q should create a source of direct photons proportional to the distance traversed through the medium-fewer on the mid-plane more vertical, the opposite of 0 and other hadronic jet fragments---NOT SEEN AT RHIC (Yet?)

PHENIX preliminary

Not seen to within errors. Same sign of v2 for and 0 more likely from present data.


Direct are not suppressed. 0 and suppressed even at high pT

Implies a strong medium effect (energy loss) since not affected. Suppression is flat at high pT. Are data flatter than theory?

Status of RStatus of RAAAA in AuAu at in AuAu at ssNNNN=200 GeV QM05=200 GeV QM05

MJT don’t laugh


Comparison to Model(s) Including Systematic errorsComparison to Model(s) Including Systematic errorsMany models explain RAA. All have different assumptions about nuclear overlap geometry, medium expansion, parton propagation, etc, and use a parameter to characterize the medium. For example, we give a fit to the PQM model, Dainese, Loizides,Paic, EPJC38, 461 (2005)

2

1

The derived transport coefficient , the mean-4-momentum transfer2/mean free path, is strongly model dependent and under intense theoretical debate, e.g. see Baier,Schiff JHEP09(2006)059.

€

ˆ q

also consistent with:

Fit by PHENIX including systematic errors PRC77(2008) 064907


Comparison to Model(s)-No Fragility!Comparison to Model(s)-No Fragility!Many models explain RAA. All have different assumptions about nuclear overlap geometry, medium expansion, parton propagation, etc, and use a parameter to characterize the medium. For example, we give a fit to the PQM model, Dainese, Loizides,Paic, EPJC38, 461 (2005)

2

1

The derived transport coefficient , the mean-4-momentum transfer2/mean free path, is strongly model dependent and under intense theoretical debate, e.g. see Baier,Schiff JHEP09(2006)059.

€

ˆ q

€

An interesting feature of the pqm model that we found is that the prediction RAA[pT=20 GeV/c] can be fit to the simple formula over the range 5< <100 GeV2/fm. This implies that the % sensitivity is independent of RAA over this range. Doesn’t seem very fragile! Can be improved by improving the measurement!

€

ˆ q

Fit by PHENIX including systematic errors PRC77(2008) 064907


RRAAAA 00 in AuAu in AuAu ssNNNN=200 GeV vs. Reaction Plane =200 GeV vs. Reaction Plane to probe details of the theory-learn something new!to probe details of the theory-learn something new!

L

PHENIX nucl-ex/0611007Phys Rev C 76, 034904 (2007)

Little/no energy loss for L < 2 fm

L = distance from edge to center of participants calculated in Glauber model

RAA is absolute, v2 is relative so no hint of this in v2 measurements. This result also suggests that v2 for pT>2GeV/c is due to anisotropic energy loss not flow.

RAA() vs. centrality varies density of and distance through medium

3 < pT < 5 GeV/c


Theorists are rising to the challengeTheorists are rising to the challenge

Agreement of RAA vs pT is quite good at both centralities. But dependence (pT=10-15 GeV/c) is still much too shallow compared to data at pT=5-8 GeV/c

e.g. S. A. Bass, et al., J.Phys.G 35(2008)104064

Also, other work by many of the co-authors, e.g. PRC 76 (2007) 064907, PRL 100 (2008) 072301


So are experimentalists: p+pSo are experimentalists: p+p

If you want to measure jets at LHC for best rate at large pT [where effects of medium may be negligble], fine, but don’t forget the many other probes [with precise pT scales!!!] in the 0-20 GeV/c pT range (which is likely more interesting).

PHENIX PLB 670 (2009) 313 +STAR has lots of hyperons


Charm via direct single e in p-p collisionsCharm via direct single e in p-p collisions

Beautiful agreement of e with c b production in p-p

PHENIX PRL97(2006)252002

p.s. we discovered this at the ISR, too, before the J/ or open charm were discovered CCRS, PLB 53(1974) 212


Au+Au alsoAu+Au also

M. Naglis-PHENIX

Wait till next month (year?)Y.Nakamiya-QM08

If RAA for direct- really approaches that of 0 at large pT~20 GeV/c as indicated by preliminary data, this would argue that the suppression due to the medium effect vanishes at large pT> 20 GeV/c and the suppression observed for pT>12 GeV/c is due to the structure function. If this is confirmed, it would be VERY BAD for LHC.


Direct Direct is mainly the gluon structure function is mainly the gluon structure function

Consistent with 1 No modification within the error. This is first measurement of ‘EMC effect’ for gluons. We expect run-8 dAu data will really measure this. QM09?

Nuclear Modification Factor-Min Bias dAu

x pT(RHIC) pT (LHC)0.02 2 GeV/c 60 GeV/c0.002 0.2 GeV/c 6 GeV/c

€

RgA (x,Q2)=

EPS08-JHEP07(2008)102

100 xT

HP2006


EPS08 NPA696 (2001) 729gluons in Pb / gluons in p

x

AntiShadowing

Shadowing

For Au+Au min bias direct For Au+Au min bias direct R RAAAA is simple is simpleAu+Au minimum bias

Do the structure function ratios actually drop by ~20% from x=0.1 to x=0.2? EPS08

says it goes the other way

Eskola,Kolhinen,Ruuskanen Nucl. Phys. B535(1998)351

100 xT

EPS08-JHEP07(2008)102


Central Collisions---no theory counterpart-yetCentral Collisions---no theory counterpart-yetAu+Au Central Collisions

Nobody has seriously measured nor calculated structure function ratios as a function of centrality!!!

100 xT

Very few attempts so far for structure function measurements or theory as a function of impact parameter: E665, ZPC 65, 225 (1995) Li and Wang, PLB 527, 85 (2002) Klein and Vogt PRL 91, 142301 (2003) Emel’yanov, et al. PRC 61, 044904 (2000) and references therein.

This should be sorted out with improved measurement in d+Au (Run8)

F. Arleo, JHEP09 (2006) 015 Effect of isospin n,p in A cf p

Also see I. Vitev, B-W. Zhang, PLB 669 (2008) 337


Predictions from CERN-Yellow-report-hep-ph/0308248

How will you do this at LHC: AA probably How will you do this at LHC: AA probably useless without pp and pA (dA) comparison datauseless without pp and pA (dA) comparison data

• For pp make sure to run at 900 GeV and 14000 GeV. Interpolation +QCD might be adequate to believe 5500 GeV• LHC could be the CGC factory. Rg(x,Q2) not known for any A or any x or Q2. Forward d+Au measurements at RHIC will be useful.

Need d+Pb or p+Pb runs at sNN=5500 GeV, unless direct are not suppressed in Pb+Pb. Direct much harder at LHC than at RHIC


Fragmentation Fragmentation ARE suppressed, confusing some theorists ARE suppressed, confusing some theoristse.g I. Vitev, pp 167-169 in Armesto, et al, arXiv:0711.0974 [hep-ph] see also Vitev, Zhang, PLB 669 (2008) 337

q

qg

q

q g

isolatedphotonsCompton

Annihilation

No experimentalist would get this result because we want to use the Compton diagram in p+p as a baseline to measure the initial state effect in Pb+Pb for the case of an outgoing constituent from the 2-2 hard scattering, the photon, which does not interact with the medium.

we want

from 2-2 Compton in p-p


CGC?‘Monojets’ in d+Au? CGC?‘Monojets’ in d+Au? Now add ‘‘no coupling of Higgs to fermions’’Now add ‘‘no coupling of Higgs to fermions’’

“We see how Carlo Rubbia wheels and deals in order to raise multimillion-dollar funding for his work, and to publish his results first so as to maintain his dominance in the field and secure the Nobel Prize. We also witness Rubbia’s anxious futile attempts, once he has won the Nobel Prize, to prove a highly speculative new theory called supersymmetry”.


Direct eDirect e in Au+Au indicate a theoretical crisis in Au+Au indicate a theoretical crisis

Run-7

e± from heavy flavor

heavy quarks suppressed the same as light quarks, and they flow, but less. This disfavors the hypothesis of energy loss by gluon bremsstrahlung in medium BUT--There are other very fundamental ideas which could explain the effect

Au+Au PHENIX PRL 98 (2007)172301


From CERN Courier, September 2007From CERN Courier, September 2007• I read an article “Yukawa's gold mine” by Nino Zichichi taken from his talk at INPC 2007 in Tokyo, Japan, in which he proposed: “We know that confinement produces masses of the order of a GeV. Therefore, according to our present understanding, the QCD ‘colourless’ condition could not explain the heavy quark mass. However, since the origin of the quark masses is still not known, it cannot be excluded that in a QCD coloured world (i.e. QGP), the six quarks are all nearly massless and that the colourless condition is ‘flavour’ dependent.”

• MJT: “Wow! Massless b and c quarks in a color-charged medium would be the simplest way to explain the apparent equality of gluon, light and heavy quark suppression indicated by the equality of RAA for 0 and direct-single e± in regions where both c and b quarks dominate.”

• Higgs doesn’t give quarks mass• QCD isn’t flavor-blind !!!


In my opinion Zichichi’s idea is much more In my opinion Zichichi’s idea is much more reasonable than AdS/CFT! How to prove it? reasonable than AdS/CFT! How to prove it? First, comments from some distinguished physicists:

• Stan Brodsky:“Oh, you mean the Higgs Field can’t penetrate the QGP.”

• Rob Pisarski: “You mean that the propagation of heavy and light quarks through the medium is the same”

• Chris Quigg (Moriond 08): “The Higgs coupling to vector bosons , W, Z is specified in the standard model and is a fundamental issue. One big question to be answered by the LHC is whether the Higgs gives mass to fermions or only to gauge bosons? The ‘Yukawa’ couplings to fermions are put in by hand and are not required.” “What sets fermion masses, mixings?” • Bill Marciano: “No change in mW-mt-mH relationship if no Yukawa coupling; but there could be other changes” (?)


My Proposal:use the VTX to be installed in 2010My Proposal:use the VTX to be installed in 2010• Map out, on an event-by-event basis, the di-hadron correlations

from identified di-jets, identified di-jets, and light quark and gluon di-jets, which originate from the vertex and can be measured with 0-hadron correlations. These measurements will confirm in detail (or falsify) whether the different flavors of quarks behave as if they have the same mass in a color-charged medium.

€

b − b

€

c − c

A. Zichichi INPC 07

MJT-Erice08

NCC

VTXBarrel

FVTXEndcaps


Another Good Betting Opportunity at LHCAnother Good Betting Opportunity at LHC

Will HWill H++-- or b or b++bb-- at at the expected SM rate be the expected SM rate be found (at LHC) before found (at LHC) before

we can measure b-quark we can measure b-quark energy loss at RHIC? energy loss at RHIC?


CorrelationsCorrelations

e.g. p + p e.g. p + p jet + jet c.f. Au + Au jet + jet c.f. Au + Au jet + jet jet + jet

Au+Au


Not enough time to talk about correlations, butNot enough time to talk about correlations, but• Correlations at RHIC have uncovered features which only occur for non-identified hadrons (so far) at relatively low pT (for hard-scattering), 2 < pT< 5 GeV/c. This is the region of the baryon anomaly, where charged particle ratios are anomalous and not understood. Obviously we are working on this with identified particles and higher statistics at RHIC; and so should the better LHC detectors!

• These features, the cone, the ridge and the shoulder remind me of the legacy of features from the CERN SpS fixed target program: the step, the kink and the horn, although I only believe two of them. Only the kink is relevant for LHC.


2 soft physics questions for the LHC2 soft physics questions for the LHC

• Will soft processes at LHC scale like Ncoll?• Will the QGP at the LHC be a superfluid like the liquid He

coolant in the magnets?


““The Kink”-M.Gazdzicki-JPGThe Kink”-M.Gazdzicki-JPG3030(2004)S701(2004)S701

€

( sNN − 2mN )3 / 4 / sNN

1/ 4≈ (sNN )1/ 4 =

Wounded nucleon model only works at s~20 GeV, where it was discovered by Busza, Bialas and fails above and below s~20 GeV: wounded projectile nucleons below s~20 GeV at mid-rapidity; wounded projectile quarks (AQM) at larger s

pions/participant A+A

p+p


4%

0.5%

p+p RHIC

Au+Au EAu+Au ETT spectra at AGS and RHIC are the same shape!!! spectra at AGS and RHIC are the same shape!!!

/8 0.76/4 0.76

3/8 0.76/2 0.76

5/8 0.76

16003200 LHC ?

€

Bj = 1πR2

1cτ 0

dET

dη ⎛ ⎝ ⎜

⎞ ⎠ ⎟

PRC 71 (2005) 034908

c0 Bj =5.40.6 GeV fm-2


AQM model works for 31<AQM model works for 31<ssNNNN<200 GeV<200 GeV

WNM, AQM T.Ochiai, ZPC35,209(86)

BCMOR PLB168, 158 (86) sNN=31 GeV +


Wit Busza-- HIC at LHC Last Call for predictions 2007

AuAu/pp (LHC)=1.4-1.7 cf 1.6 at RHIC (same)AQM; but if it goes to 5.7 then Ncoll scaling for soft processes---Unlikely!

Will soft NWill soft Nchch or E or ETT at LHC show N at LHC show Ncollcoll scaling? scaling?

This is day-1 measurement in A+A if p+p available

p+p

A+A


Compilation of data from NA49, Phys. Rev. C68 (2003) 034903

Wit Busza-- HIC at LHC Last Call for predictions 2007

x 1.6

vv22 at LHC at LHC


vv22--is there a Hydro Limit?--is there a Hydro Limit?

Alt,et al, NA49 Phys. Rev. C68 (2003) 034903

Busza~0.32

Good bet for interesting early result


Latest viscous hydro vLatest viscous hydro v22 predictions, predictions, /s etc/s etc

H. Song and U. Heinz Phys. Rev. C78 (2008) 024902

It seems that viscous hydro is more sensitive to /s than to the peak energy density e0. If Busza is correct does this mean negative /s (!) at LHC--a superfluid QGP to go along with the superfluid He magnet cooling?

/s is the ratio of the shear viscosity to the entropy densityBusza

Also see Niemi, Eskola, Ruuskanen arXiv:0806.1116


Lots of interesting Lots of interesting measurements to measurements to do at both RHIC do at both RHIC

and LHCand LHC

Date post:	17-Jan-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	joella-pierce
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

LHC Prague’09M. J. Tannenbaum 1/54 Hard and Soft Physics at RHIC with implications for LHC M. J....

Documents