Agenda
• Early data on flows – the QGP/flow culture
• Jets and fragmentation – the HEP culture
• RHIC evidence leading to claim of perfect liquid
• p-p collisions as A-A reference
• Au-Au spectra and angular correlations
• Confront conventional (QGP) RHIC analysis
• Examine LHC results in a HEP context
• Bayesian inference – a guide for the future
2
A Tale of Two Cultures
3
QCD
large l
QCD
small l
HEP
narrative
QGP/flow
narrative
ISR/SppS/FNAL
HEP data
HERA/LEP
BEV/AGS
data
RHIC/LHC
data
Compton scattering,
fragmentation, jets
LGT
QFT/CGC
e.g. F Gelis
nucleon matter
flow reality
“parton” matter
flow reality?
1980s, 90s
2000-present
1980s-present
1980s-present
Flows at the Bevalac, AGS and SPSdirected, radial and elliptic flows, early days
4
A A
directed flow “v1” radial flow bt elliptic flow v2
≈1984 ≈1992
x
zdeviation from MB
interpreted as flow
≈1998
NA35
NA49
Pb-Pb
Phys Rev Lett 80, 4136 (1998); nucl-ex/9711001Phys Lett B 157, 146 (1985)
all azimuth structure
interpreted as flows
memory of b?
‹px›
CM
Jets in p-p at the ISR and SppSFirst low-energy jet reconstruction –
MB jet spectra down to 3 GeV partons
5
simple expression predicts jet spectra
for all p-p collision energies above 10 GeV
3 GeV 3 GeVearly eighties
Phys Rev D 89, 094011 (2014); arXiv:1403.3685
2014
6
phadron
Parton Fragmentation in e+- e-
e-
e+
g, Z0
LEP
PETRA
q
q color
dipole
how are parton fragments (jet hadrons) distributed on momentum?
s = Q2
LEP, PETRA fragmentation data: 1988-2000
color dipole radiation:
ln(phadron)
LEPPETRA
e-e
ln(pparton)
s, Q2
?
an “equilibration” process
when plotted on ln(pz) → yz (as from ALEPH)
internal structure of jets
7
ln(p) rapidity y
Fragment Distributions on Momentum
xp = ln(1/xp)
fragmentation functions on logarithmic variables
alternative:
fragmentation functions
on rapidity y
ln ( ) /y E p m
s
conventional:
fragment momentum
relative to
parton momentum
D(x
p,s
)D
(y,y
ma
x)
D(l
n(p
),s)
D(x
p,s
)
xp = phadron/pparton fragmentation function
D(x,s) D(y, ymax)
LEPPETRA
non-pQCD
physics!
scaling violations
FFs self-similar on y
DGLAP DGLAP
8
Accurate Analysis of Fragmentation
1 1
max( , ) ( ; , ) (1 ) / ( , )p qg u y u p q u u B p qb - - -
max max max( , ) 2 ( ) ( , )D y y n y g u y
fragmentation functions well described by simple model function
g(u
,ym
ax)
beta distribution on normalized rapidity u
accurately models fragmentation functions
( ) ( )( , )
( )
p qB p q
p q
min
max min
y yu
y y
-
-
(normalized)
ymin
( ; , )u p qb
normalized rapidity
redundant
a form of
equilibration
via least action
p-pp-p - FNALe-e - LEP
D(y
,ym
ax)
dijet multiplicity
Phys Rev D 74, 034012 (2006); hep-ph/0606249
2006
Early RHIC Results – Flows
11
first RHIC paper - STAR
v2(b)
v2(pt)
all hadrons
all hadrons
ideal hydro
isentropic expansion?
p-p
radial flow
Au-Au
𝜼/𝒔?
bt(b)
viscous?
“mass ordering”
elliptic flow
elliptic flow
peripheral central
Phys Rev Lett 92, 112301 (2004); nucl-ex/0310004
Phys Rev Lett 86, 402 (2001); nucl-ex/0009011Phys Rev C 72, 014904 (2005); nucl-ex/0409033
spectra
azimuth correlations
hydro2003
2000
2004
Early RHIC Results – Jet Quenching
12
HIJING
CGC
major
problem:2004
minijets
quench
“too slow growth”
RAA Phys Rev C 73, 064907 (2006); nucl-ex/0411003
away-side jet
disappears
Phys Rev Lett 91, 072304 (2003); nucl-ex/0306024Phys Rev C 70, 021902 (2004); nucl-ex/0405027
pt cuts?
3 GeV
partons!
problem
2004
2003
The Perfect-Liquid Pronouncement
Elliptic flow: “The smallness of dissipative corrections
[required for hydro descriptions of v2 data]...is in itself a
remarkable and unexpected discovery. […] ...the QGP at RHIC
is almost a perfect liquid. […] Elliptic flow measurements
confirm...local thermal equilibrium...” early in the collisions.
Jet quenching: “The observed jet quenching in Au-Au
[collisions] is due to parton energy loss. […] Theoretical
analysis of jet quenching...strengthens the case for multiple
strong interactions of the quark and gluon constituents of the
matter made at RHIC.”
The CGC: “...the surprising very weak centrality and beam
energy dependence [“too slow growth”] observed [in the data,
compared to HIJING] is most satisfactorily explained and
predicted by the CGC....” The comparison (interpreted to rule
out minijets and the TCM in favor of the CGC) “...is one of the
strongest lines of empirical evidence...” for the CGC .
13
A tale of two theorists – 2004
Miklos Gyulassy (Columbia) and Larry McLerran (BNL)
Nu
clP
hys
A 7
50
, 3
0 (
20
05
); n
ucl
-th
/04
05
01
3
PL
sQGP
CGC IC
Confronting Perfect-Liquid Claims
• Understand minimum-bias dijets in isolation
• Understand p-p (N-N) collisions in isolation
• Construct a reference for transparent A-A collisions
• Determine what is truly novel about A-A collisions
14
Int J Mod Phys E 23, 1430011 (2014); arXiv:1303.4774
RHIC review:
what should a responsible scientist do?
Minimum-bias p-p Spectra
15
A-A reference is p-p collisions
quantum transition!
dijets nh ns2
- no eikonal approximation
nch = ns + nh
nh ≈ 0.005 ns2
solid curve is pQCD
prediction from FFs
and MB jet spectrum
subtract S0
NSD
0ln ( ) /t t ty m p m
two-component model
soft + hard (jets) = TCM
Phys Rev C 80, 044901 (2009); arXiv:0901.3387Phys Rev D 74, 032006 (2006); nucl-ex/0606028
Phys Rev D 87, 054005 (2013); arXiv:1210.5217
PYTHIA
2004
2008
16
Minimum-bias p-p Correlations
subtract soft reference
minijet
fragments
Dr
/√r
ref
same side
1D 2Dp-p
200 GeV
nch=1
nch=11
pt yt
0.15 61pt (GeV/c)
proton fragments
away side hadron pt ~ 0.6 GeV/c
yt1
yt2 yt2
Dr/√rref
nch
parton fragments
0ln ( ) /t t ty m p m
minimum-bias: no trigger condition
soft hard
spectrum TCM
correlation TCM
J Phys Conf Ser 27, 98 (2005); hep-ph/0506172 2005
Au-Au Spectra vs Centrality
17
subtract S0
subtract S0
spectrum hard components
solid curve is pQCD prediction from
(modified) FFs and MB dijet spectrum
centrality evolution of
jet contributions to hadron spectra
pion hard components full proton spectra
pions
protons
mp
spectrum TCM
IJMPE 17, 1499 (2008), 0710.4504
Phys Rev C 80, 044901 (2009); arXiv:0901.3387
20072009
GLS
Au-Au Correlations vs Centrality
18
85-95% 55-65%
20-30% 0-5%
fraction of total cross section 200 GeV
centralities
Phys Rev C 86, 064902 (2012); arXiv:1109.4380
peripheral
central
2008
Sample Fit – 62 GeV Au-Au
45-55%
data fit residuals SS 2D peak
NJ quadrupole AS dipole 1D on eta 2D exponential
dijets
dijets
v2
Phys Rev C 86, 064902 (2012); arXiv:1109.4380
soft
2008
Sharp Transition in Jet Structure
20
SS 2D peak amplitude AS dipole SS 2D peak width
Glauber Model: n = 2Nbin / Npart
sharp transition ST ≈ 50% central @ n = 3
ST
dijets dijets
2004
Phys Rev C 86, 064902 (2012); arXiv:1109.4380
2008
Conflict between Narratives
• Dense or opaque flowing QCD medium
• Strong jet quenching, most jets thermalized
• Viscous hydro describes low-viscosity medium
• At least 50% of Au-Au collisions are transparent
• Almost all jets survive, but quantitative modification
• Jet phenomena described quantitatively by pQCD
• Hydro fails to describe claimed “flow” phenomena
21
QGP/flow narrative:
HEP narrative:
Int J Mod Phys E 23, 1430011 (2014); arXiv:1303.4774
RHIC review:
given the same data
Resolving “Too Slow Growth”
22
Pb-Pb
HAA
ST n = 3, 50%
p-p
CGC
STHIJING
one basis (CGC) for
“perfect liquid” claim
dijet frequency
per A-A collision
predicted hard
component HAA
HIJING is based on
PYTHIA: incorrect30% of hadrons in central Au-Au
collisions are included in resolved dijets
CGC falsified by peripheral data
p-p
Phys Rev C 83, 034903 (2011); arXiv:1008.4759
HIJING
PHOBOS?
50% of s
CGC ~ ln(8n)
Radial Flow vs Jets
23blast-wave BW fits accommodate hard component – jets
soft
hard
larger T
smaller bt
smaller T
larger bt
slope break
is jet effect
J Phys G 37, 085004 (2010); arXiv:0906.1229
fit fit
19 GeV
200 GeV
17 GeV
sum sum
BW
20.5pt =
24
Elliptic Flow – Standard Narrative
xz
y
pyy
x
2 21
22 2cos2 , tan ( )
y
x
py xv
y x p - -
Reaction plane: z-x plane
hydro evolution
v2 data “hot and dense matter with partonic collectivity”
I D
Au
Auspectators
participantsparticipants
hadron density
hydro
mass scaling
2006
Nonjet (NJ) Azimuth Quadrupole
25
derived from model fits to 2D angular correlations
conventional methods
simple formula predicts all centralities and energies
2D method
jet bias:
nonflow
p-p v2
predicted
by pQCD!
(color dipole)
premise:
all azimuth
structure
is flows –
no jets
Eur Phys J C 62, 175 (2009); arXiv:0907.2686
𝐀𝐐 = ρ𝟎𝐯𝟐𝟐 no jet
contribution
2007
26
Underestimating Jet Yieldssimulation STAR data
background estimated
by ZYAM and v2
1) v2 over-estimated,
2) offset is over-
estimated by “ZYAM”
true jet yields
Au-Au 0-12% (solid)
p-p (open), both 200 GeV
with correct
background
Au-Au jet yield
six times larger
than p-p:
near-transparent
A-A system
ZYAM underestimates jet yields up to 10×
true backgroundZYAM background
ZYAM jet yields
ZYAM: zero yield at minimum
claim jet quenching, parton thermalization
J Phys G 37, 085004 (2010); arXiv:0906.1229
ZYAM corrected
0-5%
27
NJ Quadrupole Energy Systematics
A new QCD phenomenon at RHIC?
saturation?
2
2 [2]{2 }
ref
v Dn
r
r
D
squeezeout
per-pair
Bevalac
AGSSPS
RHIC
small-x glue
quadrupole
star preliminary
nucleon hydro
AGS
Bevalac
SPS
RHIC
per-particle
hydro extrapolation is misleadingAQ{2D}
LHC
AQ
arXiv:1302.0300 tbp J Phys G
LHC?
𝐀𝐐 = ρ𝟎𝐯𝟐𝟐
2007
NJ Quadrupole vs A-A Transparency
28
dijet structure scales exactly
with the number of binary
N-N collisions Nbin – as
expected for A-A transparency
“elliptic flow” based on re-
scattering in a dense medium
increases to 60% of its maximum
ST ST
in either case the energy dependence is consistent with QCD
?
but no rescattering
arXiv:1302.0300 tbp J Phys G
SS jet
peak
amplitude
“elliptic
flow”
29
NJ Quadrupole Source Boostnonjet quadrupole distributions for identified hadrons
centrality average
add deuterons
hydro is falsified by PID v2 data!
RR
200 GeV Au-Au
source boost Lambdas only
0-10%
minimum-bias data
replot v2 data as v2 / pt on yt
new information is quadrupole source boost distribution
trend predicted
dash-dot curve
add most-central data
viscous hydro
“mass scaling”
hydro
Phys Rev C 78, 064908 (2008); arXiv:0803.4002
NJ Quadrupole Spectrum
30
unidentified hadrons
30
Phys Rev C 78, 064908 (2008); arXiv:0803.4002
quadrupole boost is
centrality independent –
no coupling to A-A dense medium
universal spectrum
FF spectrum
centrality dependence
fixed boost
𝐐(𝐲t) ∝ ρ𝟎(𝐲t, 𝐛) 𝐯𝟐(𝐲𝐭, 𝐛)/pt
statistical
model!
quadrupole source
2010
31
ALICE “Higher Harmonics”
NJ quadrupole
jet structure
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2v {2} v {EP} = v {SS}+ v {2D}
2 2
m mv {2} = v {SS} m > 2 ST
points from ALICE
curves from UW
controlled by pt spectrum
SS 2D jet peak
jet bias
J Phys G 40, 055104 (2013);
arXiv:1109.2540
7 citations
200 GeV Au-Au
Phys Rev Lett 107, 032301 (2011);
arXiv:1105.3865
250 citationsno h cut
sextupole
octupole
quadrupole
BEC +
electrons
32
Sextupole Relation to SS 2D Peak
true SS baseline
ST ST
SS 2D jet peak
3 parametersSS peak amplitude SS peak h width
50-60%
50-60%
BEC
SS peak
jets
note sharp transition ST
std
fit
triangular flow from jets
prediction:
1D projection
Phys Rev C 88, 014904 (2013); arXiv:1301.2187Phys Rev C 86, 064905 (2012); arXiv:1206.5428
2008
STAR data
STAR data2013
2012
140 parameters
LHC Spectra and Yields
33
prediction
ns scale up soft by 1.8
nh scale up hard by 1.82
2.76 TeV is not
a simple multiple
(2.1) of 200 GeV
dijets play a
major role
fluctuations depend on
detector acceptance,
change endpoint
structure
little shape change from 0.2 to 2.76 TeV
PHENIX
STAR
Phys Rev Lett 106, 032301 (2011); arXiv:1012.1657
arXiv:1402.4071 tbp Phys Rev C
p-p
data
eikonal
ALICE ensemble ‹pt› vs RHIC
34
equivalent
dijet production
ALICE: All MCs are falsified
Phys Lett B 727, 371 (2013); arXiv:1307.1094
PYTHIA
Two-component Model for ‹pt›
35
simple TCM
describes
all ‹pt› data
hard components
jet spectrum width
result consistent
with hard component
from dijets
TCM also
describes
p-Pb, Pb-Pb
curves are TCM
Phys Rev C 90, 024909 (2014); arXiv:1403.6494.
ALICE event-wise ‹pt› Fluctuations
36
soft
fluctuation systematics, agreement with MB dijet expectations
Eur Phys J C 74, 3077 (2014); arXiv:1407.5530 TCM description – dijets
dijets
2014
2006
2006
J Phys G 32, L37 (2006); nucl-ex/0509030
C “covariance”
2014
A ≈ 0.4
like nh /ns
Interaction of Two Cultures
37
QCD
large l
QCD
small l
HEP
narrative
QGP/flow
narrative
ISR/SppS/FNAL
HEP data
HERA/LEP
BEV/AGS
data
RHIC/LHC
data
Compton scattering,
fragmentation, jets
LGT
QFT/CGC
e.g. F. Gelis
nucleon matter
reality
“parton” matter
reality?
1980s, 90s
2000-present
1980s-present
reality datamodel1model2
induction
predictionmeasurement
Bayesian inference – scientific method – models compete
model3
1980s-present?
Summary
• The QGP/flow culture has captured various HEP jet
manifestations from spectra and correlations and
reinterpreted them as flows carried by a dense
“partonic” medium → “perfect liquid”
• Differential measurements and optimized plotting
formats reveal the jet character of various claimed
flow phenomena – reaffirming the HEP narrative
• True novelties of high energy nuclear collisions are
(a) a nonjet (and nonflow!) quadrupole and (b) dijet
modifications in A-A and p-p, new aspects of QCD
38
Abstract
Since the mid eighties a community originating within the Bevalac program
at the LBNL has sought to achieve formation of a color-deconfined quark-
gluon plasma in heavy ion (A-A) collisions using successively higher
collision energies at the AGS, SPS, RHIC and now the LHC, emphasizing a
flowing dense "partonic" medium as the principal phenomenon. During the
same period the high energy physics (HEP) community studying
elementary collisions (e-e, e-p, p-p) has developed the modern theory of
QCD, emphasizing dijet production (fragmentation of scattered partons to
observable hadrons) as the principal (calculable) phenomenon. Initially it
was assumed that the QGP phenomenon in more-central A-A collisions
might be distinguished from the HEP dijet phenomenon in elementary
collisions. However, strong overlaps in phenomenology have revealed
significant conflicts between QGP and HEP "cultures," especially at RHIC
and LHC energies. In this talk I review some of the history and present an
assortment of experimental evidence and interpretations from the two
cultures with suggested conflict resolution.
39