Title: Femtoscopy in heavy ion collisions: Wherefore, Whence,
1Femtoscopy in heavy ion collisionsWherefore,
Whence, Whither?
- Mike Lisa
- Ohio State University
- Wherefore (why?)
- motivation (basic) formalism
- Whence (from where?)
- systematics over 2 decades
- Whither (to where?)
- or wither...?
MAL, Pratt, Soltz, Wiedemann Ann Rev Nucl Part
Sci 55 (2005)
http//www-rnc.lbl.gov/TBS
2Spacetime - The characteristic of H.I.C.
- Non-trivial space-time - the hallmark of R.H.I.C.
- Initial state dominates further dynamics
- Intermediate state impt element in exciting
signals - Final state
- Geometric structural scale is THE defining
feature of QGP
- Temporal scale sensitive to deconfinement
transition (?)
3Extraction of length scales
maximum-likelihood fit to
usually used (even for non-id)
4Reminder
- Two-particle interferometry p-space separation ?
space-time separation
source sp(x) homogeneity region
Sinyukov(95) ? connections with whole source
always model-dependent
Pratt-Bertsch (out-side-long) decomposition
designed to help disentangle space time
5Disintegration timescale - INITIAL expectation
3D 1-fluid Hydrodynamics
Rischke Gyulassy, NPA 608, 479 (1996)
with transition
?
?
- Long-standing favorite signature of QGP
- increase in ?, ROUT/RSIDE due to deconfinement ?
confinement transition - hoped-for turn on as QGP threshold is reached
6Two decades of systematics
Lisa, Pratt, Soltz, Wiedemann
R 5 fm
- Pion HBT _at_ Bevalac largely confirming nuclear
dimensions - Since 90s increasingly detailed understanding
and study w/ high stats
7Two decades of systematics
Lisa, Pratt, Soltz, Wiedemann
- Pion HBT _at_ Bevalac largely confirming nuclear
dimensions - Since 90s increasingly detailed understanding
and study w/ high stats
8Repeating most basic sanity check at relativistic
energies...
Forget homogeneity regions or fancy stuff. Do
femtoscopic length scales increase when they
should?
p-p correlations big bump ? small source
- Also
- SPS NA44(99),NA49(00)
- RHIC STAR(05)
9- Generalize A1/3 ?Npart1/3
- not bad _at_ RHIC!
- connection w/ init. size?
10- Generalize A1/3 ?Npart1/3
- not bad _at_ RHIC!
- connection w/ init. size?
- Heavy and light data from AGS, SPS, RHIC
- ?s-ordering in geometrical Rlong, Rside
- Mult K(?s)Npart
- source of residual ?s dep?
- ...Yes! common scaling
- final state drives radii, not init. geometry
- (breaks down ?s lt 5 GeV)
NB not constant density
LPSW nucl-ex/0505014
11We are not alone...
Entropy determines everything at bulk level
(soft sector) ? c.f. Helens talk
NB scaling violated ?s lt 4 GeV (as with
femtoscopy)
12Refinement chemical effects
- different behaviour below/above AGS
- violates universal scaling
- baryon ? meson dominance
- neglect time/dynamics gross F.O. geometry
appears determined by - chemistry
- universal mean free path 1 fm (!?)
13Messages from systematics
- AB, b, Npart systematics
- sanity check on overall size dependence ?
- final state multiplicity/chemistry determines
rough geometry...
...and that geometry is 2x initial size
collective/flow-like expansion? ? probe
anisotropically!
14Strongly-interacting 6Li released from an
asymmetric trap OHara, et al, Science 298 2179
(2002)
What can we learn?
transverse FO shape collective velocity ?
evolution time estimate check independent of
RL(pT)
Teaney, Lauret, Shuryak nucl-th/0110037
15- observe the source from all angles with respect
to RP - expect oscillations in HBT radii
16- observe the source from all angles with respect
to RP - expect oscillations in HBT radii (including new
cross-terms)
R2out-sidelt0 when ?pair135º
17Measured final source shape
R2out-sidelt0 when ?pair135º
ever see that symmetry at ycm ?
model-dependent, but see Retiere MAL PRC70
044907 2004
18Measured final source shape
Expected evolution
?
model-dependent, but see Retiere MAL PRC70
044907 2004
19Evolution of size and shape - the rule of two
1/2 shape reduction
x2 size increase
Initial size/shape estimated by Glauber
calculation Final config according to Retiere
MAL PRC70 044907 2004
20Anisotropic sanity check
- non-trivial excitation function
- does it make sense? Is it related to bulk
dynamics? - YES
(in a toy model yes - fordiscusison if asked)
21Messages from systematics
- AB, b, Npart systematics
- sanity check on overall size dependence ?
- final state multiplicity/chemistry determines
rough geometry... - ?, b, ?s systematics
- sanity check on shape evolution ?
- geometric evolution consistent with collective
bulk dynamics (flow)
look for dynamic signatures substructure
- more than T versus mass
- more than spectral shapes
- more than v2
- ...
- flow is defined by space-momentum correlations
- only femtoscopy can probe substructure
- of dynamic bulk behaviour
22Geometric substructure?
random (non-)system all observers measure
the whole source
23Flow-generated substructure
random (non-)system all observers measure
the whole source
- Specific predictions ofbulk global collective
flow - space-momentum (x-p) correlations
- faster (high pT) particles come from
- smaller source
- closer to the edge
24Strong flow confirmed by all expts...
25Flow-dominated Blast-wave model PRC70 044907
(2004)
26- Decreasing R(pT)
- usually attributed to collective flow
- flow integral to our understanding of R.H.I.C.
taken for granted - femtoscopy the only way to confirm x-p
correlations impt check
- Non-flow possibilities
- cooling, thermally (not collectively) expanding
source - combo of x-t and t-p correlations
early times small, hot source
late times large, cool source
27- Decreasing R(pT)
- usually attributed to collective flow
- flow integral to our understanding of R.H.I.C.
taken for granted - femtoscopy the only way to confirm x-p
correlations impt check
- Non-flow possibilities
- cooling, thermally (not collectively) expanding
source - combo of x-t and t-p correlations
28- Decreasing R(pT)
- usually attributed to collective flow
- flow integral to our understanding of R.H.I.C.
taken for granted - femtoscopy the only way to confirm x-p
correlations impt check
- Non-flow possibilities
- cooling, thermally (not collectively) expanding
source - combo of x-t and t-p correlations
- hot core surrounded by cool shell
- important ingredient of Buda-Lund hydro
picturee.g. Csörgo LörstadPRC54 1390 (1996)
29Each scenario generates x-p correlations
- Decreasing R(pT)
- usually attributed to collective flow
- flow integral to our understanding of R.H.I.C.
taken for granted - femtoscopy the only way to confirm x-p
correlations impt check
but
?x2?-p correlation yes ?x?-p correlation yes
- Non-flow possibilities
- cooling, thermally (not collectively) expanding
source - combo of x-t and t-p correlations
- hot core surrounded by cool shell
- important ingredient of Buda-Lund hydro
picturee.g. Csörgo LörstadPRC54 1390 (1996)
?x2?-p correlation yes ?x?-p correlation no
t
?x2?-p correlation yes ?x?-p correlation no
30Flow-dominated Blast-wave model PRC70 044907
(2004)
?
K
31RHIC femtoscopy with wide variety of particle
species
R(vSNN, b, Npart, A, B, mT, y, ?, PID1, PID2)
? prelim or final result available
32Trends, soft sector, and RHI history
A. Wetzler (2005)
- unlike hard and intermediate sectors, soft
sector has decades of systematics
Then p-dependent potentials, surface effects,
hard-cores, absoption...
33model comparisons
- unlike hard and intermediate sectors, soft
sector has decades of systematics - single-point agreement a bit unsatisfying...
- femtoscopic model comparisons mostly HBT radii
in b0 collisions - RHIC models only expected to work at highest
energies...
34Comparison to perfect hydro calculations
- model sensitivity (not just R5)
- Rout too big (too long emission time?)
- Rlong too big (too long evolution time?)
- Rside too small (?)
35Comparison to Boltzmann/cascade models
better! (better than perfect...?)
36Whats the difference?
freeeze-out........ EoS............viscosity
hydro
cascade
should be the same IF source is Gaussian
37Non-Gaussian Effects and Model Comparisons -
Hydro/BW
38Wherefore Whence
R(vSNN, b, Npart, A, B, mT, y, ?, PID1, PID2)
- size shape timescale estimate
- space-momentum substructure of a flowing
systemdynamics and evolution of - radial flow (size and shift)
- elliptic flow (shape and timescale)
- directed flow (shape and tilt) did not
show due to time - hadronic particle potentials / phase shifts
- Femtoscopy
- well-calibrated, well-established tool
- the one most directly connected to space-time -
THE defining feature of R.H.I.C. - huge set of systematics of consistent
measurements - sensitive to physics in models
- with care the femtoscope is a precision tool to
apply to new systemsLHC, pp, etc
39Whither?
- non-id correlations for b?0 Retiere Lisa
PRCPRC70 044907 (2004) - invert the problem low-energy phaseshifts from
exotic pairs (e.g. ?-?) talk of H. Gos P.
Chaloupta QM05 - space-time substructure in pp ?? - direct
comparison talk of Z. ChajeckiChajecki et
al, WW05 - imaging - beyond sizes and shifts Brown,
Danielewicz, Pratt, others - first-order azimuthally-sensitive femtoscopy -
spacetime aspects of v1Lisa et al, PLB489 287
PLB496 1 - relative jets, spin.... (?)
- continue/expand rich program _at_ ALICE/LHC
40THEEND
41Strong flow confirmed by all expts...
Central (10) AuAu (PbPb) collisions at y0
42A simple estimate ?0 from ?init and ?final
- BW ? ?X, ?Y _at_ F.O. (?X gt ?Y)
- hydro flow velocity grows t
- From RL(mT) ?0 9 fm/c
- consistent picture
- Longer or shorter evolution times
- inconsistent
- toy estimate ?0 ?0(BW) 9 fm/c
- too short to account for expansion??
- Need a real model comparison? asHBT workable
evolutionary clock constraint for models
MAL ISMD03
431D projections a limited view
STAR PRC71 044906 (2005)
- Usually, quality of data and fit shown in 1D
projections - Narrow integration best
- limited view of data
- see talks of Adam, Scott, Sandra
- tomorrow a better way
out
Gaussian fit (remember not Gaussian CF)
side
long
44The perennial non-Gaussianness
- Source has never been fully Gaussian. c.f. J.
Sullivan _at_ SPS - periodically re-discovered, with little change
information condensation needed to observe
systematic data trends - non-Gaussianness _at_ RHIC reported in first and
subsequent HBT measurements - imaging is probably best solution (but even
then...)
45The perennial non-Gaussianness
- CF is mostly Gaussian
- STAR tried Edgeworth
- functional expansion
- (Csorgo 2000)
- among few quantitative estimates
- of non-Gaussian shape
STAR PRC71 044906 (2005)
- 20 effect in Rlong! systematic error...?
- appears fit captures dominant length scale
46Another implication of strong flow mT scaling
47- transverse shape
- non-trivial excitation function
- increased flowtime ? rounder FO geometry _at_ RHIC
- insufficient flowxtime to become in-plane
48AuAu ?sNN 2.3 GeV b?5 fm
E895, PLB496 1 (2000)
49AGS
- transverse shape
- non-trivial excitation function
- increased flowtime ? rounder FO geometry _at_ RHIC
- insufficient flowxtime to become in-plane
- Spatial orientation
- another handle on flow time
- HUGE tilts _at_ AGS!!
- RHIC?
- QGP-induced orientation?
STAR soon
?
?
50v1 predictions (QGP invoked)
x-p transverse-longitudinal coupling may be
affected in early (v1) stage
L.P. Csernai, D. Rohrich Phys. Lett. B 458
(1999) 454
J. Brachmann et al., Phys. Rev. C. 61 024909
(2000)
51AGS
- transverse shape
- non-trivial excitation function
- increased flowtime ? rounder FO geometry _at_ RHIC
- insufficient flowxtime to become in-plane
- Spatial orientation
- another handle on flow time
- HUGE tilts _at_ AGS!!
- RHIC?
- QGP-induced orientation?
- requires true 3D dynamical model (explicitly
non-B.I.)
STAR soon ?
?
?