Current Status Justin Frantz for TTodoroki Ohio University WWND 15 Keystone CO 1 Filling in For Takahito Todoroki his suggestions A Taranenkos slides PHENIX v n ID: 547363
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The PHENIX Flow Data:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
The PHENIX Flow Data:Current Status
Justin Frantz (for T.Todoroki)Ohio UniversityWWND 15 Keystone, CO
1
(Filling in For
Takahito
Todoroki
, his suggestions + A.
Taranenko’s
slides)Slide2
PHENIX
vn Measurements at RHIC
Introduction / Methods
NOT : Azimuthal anisotropy in small systems: NOT d+Au and 3
He+Au at 200GeV : Paul Stankus Talk Later This Morning
System size dependence of anisotropy? Energy Scan Results
PID Vn results confronting theory
2
ε
2
ε
3
ε
4Slide3
Motivation: “Solving” Hydro
To get from here to here we need: 3
=?
=?
Lots O’ Data
Shape = ?Slide4
PHENIX Methods: Event Plane
v
n’
s
4
Correlate hadrons in central Arms
with
EVENT PLANE (RXN
,
etc
)
(I)
(II)
∆
φ
correlation function for EP
N
- EP
S
∆
φ
correlation function for EP - CA
Central Arms (CA) |
η
’| < 0.35(particle detection)
ψn RXN (|h|=1.0~2.8) MPC (|h|=3.1~3.7) BBC (|
h|=3.1~3.9)
From 2012:
-
FVTX (1.5<|h|<3)Slide5
5
ψ
n
RXN
(|
h
|=1.0~2.8)
MPC
(|
h
|=3.1~3.7)
BBC
(|
h
|=3.1~3.9)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 062301 (2010)
V
n
(EP):
Phys.Rev.Lett. 107 (2011) 252301
Good agreement between
V
n results obtained by event plane (EP) and two-particle correlation method (2PC)No evidence for significant η-dependent non-flow contributions from di-jets for pT=0.3-3.5 GeV/c. Systematic uncertainty : event plane: 2-5% for v2 and 5-12% for v3. arXiv:1412.1038 , arXiv:1412.1043
PHENIX Methods: History/Non-FlowSlide6
Using RHIC’s Flexibility
6
harmonic n
v
2
v3200
GeV
62 GeV39 GeV
Species
Au+Au
Cu+Cu
Cu+Au
v1
v4Open up new axesSlide7
Recent PHENIX publications on flow at RHIC:
1) Systematic Study of Azimuthal Anisotropy in Cu+Cu and
Au+Au Collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV:
arXiv:1412.10432) Measurement of the higher-order anisotropic flow coefficients for identified hadrons in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV :
arXiv:1412.1038
7
5
+
Cu+Au
Preliminary
ResultsSlide8
v4
PHENIX Data: Preview
8
Species
We are filling up this three dimensional space in PHENIX with more and more precision
harmonic n
v
2v3
200
GeV
62
GeV39 GeV
Au+Au
Cu+Cu
Cu+AuSlide9
Different (LARGE) Heavy Collisions Systems
9
Species
harmonic n
v
2
v3
200 GeV62 GeV
39
GeV
Au+Au
Cu+Cu
Cu+Au
v1
v4First focus on symmetric systemsSlide10
10
Flow in symmetric colliding systems :
Cu+Cu
vs
Au+Au
10
Phys.Rev.Lett
. 107 (2011) 252301
Strong centrality dependence of v
2
in
AuAu
,
CuCu
Weak centrality dependence of v3
Simultaneous
measurements of
v2 and v3 Crucial constraint for
η
/sUpdates for HYDRO constraintsfrom Cu+Cu?Slide11
v3 Au+Au
vs. Cu+CuWithin largish errors over larger pT
the sameBut some constraining power at low pt (0-1 GeV/c)
11Slide12
Should Cu+Au be on this axis?
12
Species
harmonic n
v
2
v3
200 GeV62 GeV
39
GeV
Au+Au
Cu+Cu
Cu+Au
v1
One of the motivations for
Cu+Au
was “exotic” configurations? Fair to put it on this axis?Slide13
13
Centrality/Pt dependence of
v
2
, v
3
in 200
GeV
Cu+Au
13
-
C
entrality
dependence of v2
v3 similar to Au+Au… - What? No
Significant centrality dependence of v3 ! Same centrality dependence as seen in symmetric collisions:
Au+Au and
Cu+CuSlide14
14
14
v
3
in 200
GeV
Cu+Au
vs
Cu+Cu
/
Au+Au
The observed system size independence of v
3
Is expected from the similar values of ɛ3
Phys.Rev. C84 (2011) 067901Slide15
Should Cu+Au be on this axis?
15
Species
harmonic n
v
2
v3
200 GeV62 GeV
39
GeV
Au+Au
Cu+Cu
Cu+Au
v1
Answer: Yes : I.S. fluctuations are more important/dominant than overlap shapes! (at least for v
3
)Slide16
16
v2, in 200
GeV
Cu+Au
vs
Cu+Cu
/
Au+Au
16
Phys.Rev
. C84 (2011) 067901
The observed system size dependence of v2:
AuAu
>
Cu+Au
>CuCu originate from the differences in initial ɛ2
Overlap region of course does affect v2
Slide17
Note: Caveat v1?
17
Species
harmonic n
v
2
v3
200 GeV62 GeV
39
GeV
Au+Au
Cu+Cu
Cu+Au
v1
Evidence of exotic overlaps making a difference?: v1 possiblySlide18
Note: Understanding v1
ATLAS: hydro like dipolar v1 ?PHENIX disentangling v1
components in Cu+Au using spectator-part. correlationsAnother dimension
from new FVTX!Longitudinal Assym ClearTranslate to Midrapidity “exotic shape” effect?
18Slide19
Energy Scan
19
Species
We have energy scan data for
Au+Au
both v2 , v3
, v4
harmonic nv2
v
3
200
GeV62 GeV
39 GeV
Au+Au
Cu+CuCu+Auv1
For
Cu+Cu we have it just for v2v4Slide20
Incl. Hadron
v2 Au+Au
, 39-200
GeV
20
No significant change in v
2
(
p
T
) for √s = 39 -200
GeV
!
Precision DataSlide21
v2 in CuCu/
AuAu collisions at 62.4-200 GeV
21
Eccentricity scaling is
broken.
Just the transverse size R in the
ecc model or could there be i
mplications for viscosity? HYDRO?
5
σ
x
&
σ
y
RMS widths of density distribution defined in Glauber MCSlide22
E.g. Data-based 1/R Scaling Model Interpretation
22
Slope parameter
β″
same
Au+Au
at 62.4-200
GeV
but
shows change from Au+Au to Cu+Cu at 200 GeV . Different / damping
in smaller systems / energies?
PRL112, 082302(2014)Lacey et.al. 1/R Scaling Model: viscosity is the difference?
Interesting to see what REAL HYDRO MODEL will say!Slide23
Good Old Au+Au
23
Species
harmonic n
v
2
v3
200 GeV62 GeV39
GeV
Au+Au
Cu+Cu
Cu+Au
v1
K p
Step BackAny new information here?ADD PID (another dimension)v4Slide24
24
v
2
, v
3
, v
4 of Identified charged hadrons Au+Au at 200 GeV
arXiv:1412.1038Slide25
Scaling Properties of Vn Flow at 200
GeV
25
arXiv:1412.1038
NCQ-scaling holds well for v
2
,v
3
,v
4
below 1GeV in KE
T
space, at 200GeV
v
n
is related to v
2Slide26
Model Constraints from All Moments
26
We all know what a big constraint the
vn has been Slide27
Break the Glb/KLN ambiguity?
Can we resolve this with PID?
27
Private Communication: Shen, C
. et. al. arXiv:1110.3033 Slide28
Model Comparisons v2/v3 ratio
MCKLN works better for peripheralGlauber better for most centralWe need a new model / New physics effect?
28
Private Communication: Shen, C
. et. al. arXiv:1110.3033 Slide29
Some More Space Filled in with Cu+Cu
29
Species
harmonic n
v
2
v3
200 GeV62 GeV
39
GeV
Au+Au
Cu+Cu
Cu+Auv1
K p
We also have newly finalized PID’d Cu+Cu v2 !
Au+AuSlide30
30
v
2
of Identified charged hadrons
Au+Au
/
Cu+Cu
at 200 GeV
arXiv:1412.1043
Which hydro parameters/inputs would be needed match the
Cu+Cu
data as well?Slide31
Summary
PHENIX is filling in the 3-D (5-D!) space!Already confronting Theory adding more constraints to our field’s hoped-for “Solving” of Hydro
31
Anxious to see more of this
and other RHIC data included!Slide32
32
Backup Slides
Slide33
more on v1 thing
33Slide34
34
centrality (%)
n=2 RXN
n=3 RXN
n=4 RXN
n=2 MPC
n=3 MPC
n
= <cos
n(
n(meas.)
-
n(true)
)>
200GeV Au+Au
PHENIX Preliminary
PHENIX Flow Measurements : Event Plane Resolution
ψ
n
RXN
(|
h
|=1.0~2.8)
MPC
(|
h
|=3.1~3.7) BBC (|
h|=3.1~3.9)Overall good event plane resolution
for V
n
measurements and study beam energy dependence of the flow.Slide35
35
Differential v
2
(p
T
): Comparison with STAR Multi-particle methods
Ratio V
2
{STAR} / V
2
{PHENIX EP} < 1.0 for 4p cumulant and LYZ method .
LYZ : Lee-Yang-Zeros Method
Lee-Yang-Zeros Method
4p cumulant methodSlide36
Some More Space Filled in with Cu+Cu
36
Species
harmonic n
v
2
v3
200 GeV62 GeV
39
GeV
Au+Au
Cu+Cu
Cu+Au
v1
K p
Au+Au
v
4