home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_ta lk.odp 1 Have we seen Local Parity Violation at RHIC? ● Introduction ● What the present data tell us ● Alternative.

/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp

1

Have we seen Local Parity Violation at RHIC?

● Introduction

● What the present data tell us

● Alternative observable

Based on: Adam Bzdak, VK and Jinfeng Liao, PRC81 031901(R) (2010), [arXiv:0912.5050] J. Liao, VK, and Adam Bzdak, in preparation


2

CPT is in good shape

C

P

T

onjecture

ress Release

hink


3

J. Liao, BNL workshop, April 2010


4

The basic observable

X (in-plane)

Y (out-of-plane) Py (out-of-plane)

Charge Separation orElectric Dipole in Pt Space(along out-of-plane direction)

Complications:• hard to identify direction of magnetic field (reaction plane)P. E-by-E• Direction of dipole either parallel OR anti-parallel to magnetic field

Px (in-plane)

Momentum space

Coordinate space

Bcurrent

→ only variance of parity-odd operator can be observed


5

The STAR measurement(which everybody discusses)


6

The STAR measurement(a closer look)

Py(out-of-

plane)

Px(in-

plane)

+

Concentrate on same sign pairs for the moment

+

Set

Py(out-of-

plane)

Px(in-

plane)

++

for both configurations

How to distinguish?


7

The STAR measurement(which not so many discuss)

Py(out-of-

plane)

Px(in-

plane)

++

Py(out-of-

plane)

Px(in-

plane)

++

Data favor in-plane back-to-back correlation

Add to the mix

same sign

opp. sign.


8J. Liao


9

The bottom line


10

Using simple math

STAR measures for same sign pairs in Au+Au:

Therefore:

No out-of-plane correlation for same charge pairs

Opposite charge:

in-plane

in-plane

out-of-plane

out-of-plane

Same Charge

opp. Charge


11

Saving the chiral magnetic effect...


12

The argument in the STAR papers:B

out, B

in = Background (in and out of plane)

P = Parity violating signal

Thus:

The data show

Thus existence of CME would require:

●“Juuuuust right scenario” a.k.a fine tuning !!!●We need to understand the background●We need differential information on


13

Do we understand the background

NO!


14

How realistic is the assumption ?

Two particle density:

Prominent example: HBT with respect to the reaction plane

Implies: “background” correlations are independent of reaction plane

Reaction plane dependence always enters via v2 !

Pt –

and eta dependence of v2 needs to be taken into account

Sources discussed in context of CME: Clusters (STAR, F. Wang), Resonances (STAR), .Anomaly (Asakawa et al)...


15

Pt-dependence

Correlated pairs areonly moderately harder thanthermal pairs


16

Alternative observable

Quadrupolemoment

Reaction planeangle

Charged dipolemoment

Charged dipoleangle


17

Extract dipole moment and angle


18J. Liao


19J. Liao


20

Correlations can lead to similar dipole angel; but reduce magnitude


21

SummaryP

y(out-of-

plane)

Px(in-

plane)

++

● Data favor in-plane back-to-back correlation for same charge

– CME predicts out of plane

● Presence of CME requires fine-tunining: Background = - CME ?

● Need differential information on

– Be aware that pt- and eta

dependencemay be differernt

● Alternative observable: measure charge dipole (orientation and magnitude)

● How about proton-proton????


22

Conclusion

NO definitive evidence for local parity violation!

Yet !?

home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_ta lk.odp 1 Have we seen Local Parity Violation at RHIC? ● Introduction ● What the present data tell us ● Alternative.

Documents

plane y

plane p x

plane p y

plane p y

plane correlation

plane concentrate

charge slide

liao slide