Heavy quarkonium in nuclear collisions from SPS to LHC Roma – April 21-23, 2009 E. Scomparin –INFN Torino (Italy) • Introduction why heavy quarkonia are important in QGP studies ? • Quarkonium production in elementary collisions facts and open problems • Quarkonium interaction in cold nuclear matter Setting a reference for heavy-ion collisions • Quarkonium interaction in hot nuclear matter Hints of deconfinement
63
Embed
Heavy quarkonium in nuclear collisions from SPS to LHC
Heavy quarkonium in nuclear collisions from SPS to LHC. E. Scomparin –INFN Torino (Italy). Roma – April 21-23, 2009. Introduction why heavy quarkonia are important in QGP studies ? Quarkonium production in elementary collisions facts and open problems - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Heavy quarkonium in nuclear collisionsfrom SPS to LHC
Roma – April 21-23, 2009
E. Scomparin –INFN Torino (Italy)
• Introductionwhy heavy quarkonia are important in QGP studies ?
• Quarkonium production in elementary collisions facts and open problems
• Quarkonium interaction in cold nuclear matter Setting a reference for heavy-ion collisions
• Quarkonium interaction in hot nuclear matter Hints of deconfinement
First studies in the Old World....Florence, XII-XIII century
.. then moving to the New World
Gatlinburg, Tennessee 1891
The (real) beginning of the storyFirst paper on the topic
1986, Matsui and Satz
The most famous paper inour field (1231 citations!)
Keywords
1)Hot quark-gluon plasma
2)Colour screening
3)Screening radius
4)Dilepton mass spectrum
Unambiguous signature ofQGP formation
Everything in one slide.....
Perturbative Vacuum
cc
Color Screening
ccScreening of
strong interactionsin a QGP
• Different states, different sizes• Screening stronger at high T
• D maximum size of a bound state, decreases when T increases
Resonance melting
QGP thermometer
...but the story is not so simple
• Are there any other effects, not related to colour screening, that may induce a suppression of quarkonium states ?
... so let’s start from the beginning !
• Is it possible to define a “reference” (i.e. unsuppressed) process in order to properly define quarkonium suppression ?
• Which elements should be taken into account in the design of an experiment looking for qurkonium suppression?
None of these questions has a trivial answer....
• Do we understand charmonium production in elementary collisions ?
• Can the melting temperature(s) be uniquely determined ?
• Do experimental observations fit in a coherent picture ?
Charmonium states
The binding of the c and cbar quarks can be expressed using the Cornell potential:
krr
rV
)(
Coulomb contribution, induced by gluon exchange between q and qbar
Confinement term
3 GeV
3.8 GeV
J/
(2S) or ’
3S1
3S1
3P2
3P1
3P0
2
1
0Mas
s
thresholdDD
JS L12 spin orbital
total
Charmonium cc bound state
Relative motion is non-relativistic(~0.4) non-perturbativetreatment
If m<2mD stable under strong decay
Charmonium decay modes
• Charmonium exhibits a (nearly) infinite series of decay channels
• Decay into a pair of leptons is the only channel experimentally measured in heavy-ion collisions
Standard way of measuring muon pairs(NA50 at SPS, PHENIX at RHIC, ALICE at LHC)
beam
MuonOther
hadron absorber
and tracking
target
muon trigger
magnetic field
Iron wall
• Place a huge hadron absorber to reject hadronic background
• Implement a trigger system, based on fast detectors, to select muon candidates (1 in 10-4 interactions, in Pb-Pb collisions at SPS energy)
• Reconstruct muon tracks in a spectrometer (B + tracking detectors)
• Extrapolate muon tracks back to the target Vertex reconstruction is usually rather poor (z~10 cm)
• Correct for multiple scattering and energy loss
Second generation experiment(s):NA60 at SPS, future upgrades at RHIC,LHC
2.5 T dipole magnet
targets
beam tracker
vertex tracker
or
!
hadron absorberMuonOther
and trackingmuon trigger
magnetic field
Iron wall
Use a silicon tracker in the vertex region to track muons before they suffer multiple scattering and energy loss in the hadron absorber.
These tracks are matched in coordinate and momentum space with those of the muon chambers
2) Stronger nuclear effects when moving towards higher xF
• Coherent and satisfactory theoretical description still missing
• Other effects may play a role (initial state energy loss, intrinsic charm)
What happens at higher energy ?• d-Au collisions have been studied at RHIC• Statistics rather poor up to now
ppJ
dAuJ
dAucoll
dAu NR
/
/1 (and similarly for AA) is the quantity usually studied
at RHIC to quantify nuclear effects
• Shadowing plays an important role• Nuclear absorption (break-up) smaller than at SPS
Influence of shadowing at RHIC
Forward Mid Backwardd Au
d Au
• RHIC data sit in the Shadowing region (forward and midrapidity) Anti-shadowing region (backward rapidity)
Shape of RdAu vs rapidity largely determined by shadowing
d-Au collisions – news from QM09• Considering various production processes, one gets different results for cold nuclear matter effects
“Intrinsic” production
gg J/(following emission of soft gluon(s)
does not modify kinematics)
“Extrinsic” productiongg J/ + g
(emission of a hard gluon)
Differentx2 range
d-Au collisions – news from QM09• Large statistics sample (run-8)
• First preliminary results (RCP)
EKS shadowing
EPS08
σ = 0 mb
σ = 4 mb
EKS
σ = 0 mb
σ = 4 mb
Putting everything together....
• Global interpretation of cold nuclear matter effects not easy• √s-dependence clearly visible in the data
• Collect pA data in the same kinematic domain of AA data
Quarkonium productionin AA collisions
Looking for the QGP
cc pair in a deconfined medium
Modify quarkonium potential
Perturbative Vacuum
cc
Color Screening
cc
krr
rV
)( Drer
rV /)(
Confined world Quarkonium states described with =0.52, k=0.926 GeV/fm (mc = 1.84 GeV)
Deconfined worldNo confinement term Coulomb part screened
Do bound states still exist ?
Conditions for melting
Drer
pH
/
2
2
“Screened Hamiltonian”
22 1 rp
Drerr
rE
/22
1)( with
• The condition 0r
Ehas NO solutions for D
84.0
1
fm41.01
We have
fmTg
PQCDD 36.01
3
2)(
2while, for a 3-flavor QGP
with T=200 MeV one has
The condition D
84.0
1is verified
No bound statein a T = 200 MeV
QGP
Charmonium (bottomonium) states• Various cc and bb bound states have very different binding energy and dimensions
• Strongly bound states are smaller
• The r0>rD condition can be met at different temperatures for the various resonances
• Try to identify the resonances which disappear and deduce the temperature reached in the collision
Suppression hyerarchy
J/
(3S) b(2P)(2S)
b(1P)
(1S)
(2S)c(1P)
J/
Digal et al., Phys.Rev. D64(2001)094015
• Each resonance has a typical dissociation threshold• Consider the cc (bb) resonances that decay into J/()
• The J/ () yield should exhibit a step-wise suppression when T increases (e.g. comparing A-A data at various √s or centrality)
Dissociation temperatures• Quantitative predictions on dissociation temperatures come from
• lattice QCD studies• potential models• effective field theories
• Results have shown significant oscillations in the recent past
Non-perturbative domain
• Calculate spectral functions for the various states
• Lattice spectral functions seemed to indicate high dissociation temperatures
These conclusions are now regarded as premature
Recent results on Tdiss
Ebin Tweak binding
Ebin Tstrong binding
• Binding energies for the various states from potential models• Assume a state “melts” when Ebind < T • Result: J/ dissociated at RHIC
• Recent development: include viscosity effects
Smaller screening massStronger binding
AA results – SPS energy - QM09• Recent results on pA at 158 GeV (see previous slides) imply a modification in the interpretation of AA data
abs J/ (158 GeV) > abs J/ (400 GeV)
smaller anomalous suppression with respect to previous estimates
Published results QM09 new reference
B. Alessandro et al., EPJC39 (2005) 335R. Arnaldi et al., PRL99 (2007) 132302
In-In 158 GeV (NA60)Pb-Pb 158 GeV (NA50)
Still a ~30% effect incentral Pb-Pb!
Role of shadowingIn AA collisions the initial state effects (shadowing) affect not only the target, but also the projectile (poster by R. Arnaldi et al.) to be included in the extrapolation of the reference from pA to AA
Even in absence of anomalous suppression, the use of the standard reference (no shadowing) induces a 5-10% suppression signal sizeable effect
Reference curves for InIn and PbPb,including shadowing
Using the new reference (shadowing in the projectile and target)• Central Pb-Pb: still anomalously suppressed• In-In: almost no anomalous suppression?
AA results - RHIC• Cold nuclear matter effects poorly known Results shown as RAA
• Systems studied: AuAu, CuCu
Main observationsStrong suppression in Au-AuForward rapidity J/ are more suppressed
AA results – RHICAnomalous suppression
Compare CuCu and AuAuwith expected nuclearabsorption
1) CuCu compatible with nuclear absorption
AuAu2) Midrapidity: compatible with nuclear absorption3) Forward rapidity Anomalous suppression at Npart > 100200
Cold matter effects still based on low-statistics d-Au data
SPS vs RHIC• Try to plot together SPS and midrapidity RHIC results (in terms of RAA)
The agreement between SPS/NA38+NA50+NA60and RHIC/PHENIX is morethan remarkable.......
...but difficult to understand!
• Different s• Different shadowing• Different nuclear absorption
RHIC AA results – news from QM09
• Push coverage up to high pT
• (Maybe) small disagreement STAR vs PHENIX• Rule out class of models based on AdS/CFT (+hydro)• Increase at high pT already seen at SPS
Pb-Pb NA50
What do these results mean?
• 3 main results• Cold nuclear matter effects cannot explain J/ suppression• Similar suppression at SPS and RHIC energies• Forward y suppression larger (at RHIC)
SPS RHIC LHC
s (GeV) 17.2 200 5500
Ncc ≈ 0.2 ≈10 ≈100-200
x (at y=0) ≈ 10-1 ≈ 10-2 ≈ 10-4
• 2 classes of models• Only J/ from ’ and c decays are suppressed at SPS and RHIC
Expect same suppression at SPS and RHIC Reasonable if Tdiss
J/~ 2Tc
• Also direct J/ are suppressed at RHIC but cc multiplicity high
cc pairs can recombine in the later stages of the collision The 2 effects may balance: suppression similar to SPS
Sequential suppression
0 = 1 fm/cused here
SPS overall syst (guess) ~17%
PHENIX overall syst ~12% & ~7%
• Quantitative comparison of energy densities not easy (different formation times RHIC vs SPS)
• Nuclear absorption taken (approx) into account
• Can higher large-y suppression be explained in this scenario?• Note: suppression larger than total and ’ fraction...
• Possible mechanism gluon saturation at forward y (CGC)
=0
=2
This calc. is for open charm, butJ/ similar
hep-ph/0402298
Recombination?
• Most direct way for a quantitative estimateMeasure open charm cross section with good accuracy
Still not the case at RHIC....
• Indirect way• Look at the y and pT distributions in AA vs pp pA• If recombination is a sizeable effect
• Rapidity spectra narrower in AuAu than in pp• pT spectra of recombined pairs should not increase
• Provides a natural explanation for larger suppression at forward y
pT distributions, v2
Statistics is not so good, but pT behaviour looks rather flat
Mid rapidity Forward rapidity
• Smoking gun for regeneration: J/ flow
If regeneration important, J/ should inherit c quark flow
Rappc & bc v2
J/ v2
Some examples of regeneration models
Yan, Zhuang, Xunucl-th/0608010
Thews Eur.Phys.J C43, 97 (2005)
Grandchamp, Rapp, BrownPRL 92, 212301 (2004)
• Features of RHIC results qualitatively reproduced
If regeneration important J/ enhancement at LHC
Statistical hadronization• J/ production by statistical hadronization of charm quarks (Andronic, BraunMunzinger, Redlich and Stachel, PLB 659 (2008) 149)
• All charm quarks produced in primary hard collisions• Survive and thermalize in QGP • Charmed hadrons formed at chemical freeze-out (statistical laws)• No J/ survival in QGP
Reproduces RHIC data very well Decisive test at LHC
Gluon saturation effects on J/ suppression
• Factorization badly broken in pA and AA collisions in pQCD
Conclusion of the authors:
Heavy quarkonium at ALICE• Can be measured at both
• Midrapidity (central barrel, via electron tagging in the TRD)• Forward rapidity (2.5<y<4, in the muon arm)
• Many questions still to be answered at LHC energy
• Role of the large charm quark multiplicity• Will J/ regeneration dominate the picture for charmonium ? (RHIC results still not conclusive, at this stage)
• Bottomonium physics• Still completely unexplored in HI collisions• Will the tightly bound (1S) be melted at the LHC ?
(...estimates subject to a non-negligible time evolution!)
A look at the expected mass spectra
• No suppression/enhancement assumed• Comb. background to be estimated via event mixing
Expected statistics (central PbPb)
State S[103] B[103] S/B S/(S+B)1/2
J/ 130 680 0.20 150
’ 3.7 300 0.01 6.7
(1S) 1.3 0.8 1.7 29
(2S) 0.35 0.54 0.65 12
(3S) 0.20 0.42 0.48 8.1
Numbers refer to
L = 51026 cm-2s-1
106 s running time
• Significances not dramatically different between J/ and smaller statistics compensated by drastic background reduction
• Worst situation for the ’ : statistics , but much larger background
• Situation improves for the J/ when moving towards peripheral (background essentially combinatorial)• For the , no significant centrality dependence (background dominated by correlated open beauty)
A suppression scenario
• Suppose absJ/=0 (reasonable, extrapolating from RHIC ?)
• No b quark energy loss • Take into account feed-down from higher resonances
Use openbeauty asreference
• Suppression-1• Tc=270 MeV• TD/TC=1.7 (4.0) for J/ ()
• Suppression-2• Tc=190 MeV• TD/TC=1.21 (2.9) for J/ ()
Good sensitivity to inputparameters, for variousscenarioes
Quarkonia in the dielectron channel
• Complementary measurement wrt the dimuon channel• Allows evaluation of the fraction of J/ from B decays (thanks to ITS)
• TRD• Electron ID for p>1 GeV• Electron trigger for p>3 GeV (not for central PbPb)
• Efficiency between 0.8-0.9 for reconstruction of single e-
• Good momentum resolution with the typical bremsstrahlung tail
Invariant mass spectra
L = 51026 cm-2s-1
106 s running time
10% centralevents
Background frommisidentified
likely to be suppressed(quenching)
dNch/d = 3000
pT spectra
• For J/ significance is still reasonable up to pT= 10 GeV
Conclusions
• J/ suppression considered for a long time as the “golden” signature for QGP formation, but:
• A very careful study (and a corresponding theoretical effort) is necessary to understand cold nuclear matter effects
• Even elementary production processes are not so “elementary” (interplay perturbative vs non-perturbative)
• A clear signal of anomalous suppression has been seen at both SPS and RHIC
• RHIC interpretation more difficult (recombination effects)
• LHC: can J/ still be considered as a hard probe ? Suppression of bottomonium states new frontier