1: %\documentstyle[12pt,twocolumn]{article}
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4: \topmargin -1cm
5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
10: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: \def\bs{$\backslash$} \def\bslp{\baselineskip}
14: \def\spg{\setcounter{page}} \def\seq{\setcounter{equation}}
15: \def\bd{\begin{document}} \def\ed{\end{document}}
16: \def\bmp{\begin{minipage}} \def\emp{\end{minipage}}
17: \def\bcc{\begin{center}} \def\ecc{\end{center}} \def\npg{\newpage}
18: \def\beq{\begin{equation}} \def\eeq{\end{equation}} \def\hph{\hphantom}
19: \def\be{\begin{equation}} \def\ee{\end{equation}} \def\r#1{$^{[#1]}$}
20: \def\n{\noindent} \def\ni{\noindent} \def\pa{\parindent}
21: \def\hs{\hskip} \def\vs{\vskip} \def\hf{\hfill} \def\ej{\vfill\eject}
22: \def\cl{\centerline} \def\ob{\obeylines} \def\ls{\leftskip}
23: \def\underbar#1{$\setbox0=\hbox{#1} \dp0=1.5pt \mathsurround=0pt
24: \underline{\box0}$} \def\ub{\underbar} \def\ul{\underline}
25: \def\f{\left} \def\g{\right} \def\e{{\rm e}} \def\o{\over} \def\d{{\rm d}}
26: \def\vf{\varphi} \def\pl{\partial} \def\cov{{\rm cov}} \def\ch{{\rm ch}}
27: \def\la{\langle} \def\ra{\rangle} \def\EE{e$^+$e$^-$} \def\pt{p_{\rm t}}
28: \def\dt{\delta} \def\sqnn{\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}}
29: \def\bitz{\begin{itemize}} \def\eitz{\end{itemize}}
30: \def\btbl{\begin{tabular}} \def\etbl{\end{tabular}}
31: \def\btbb{\begin{tabbing}} \def\etbb{\end{tabbing}}
32: \def\beqar{\begin{eqnarray}} \def\eeqar{\end{eqnarray}}
33: \def\\{\hfill\break} \def\dit{\item{-}} \def\i{\item}
34: \def\bbb{\begin{thebibliography}{9} \itemsep=-1mm}
35: \def\ebb{\end{thebibliography}} \def\bb{\bibitem}
36: \def\bpic{\begin{picture}(260,240)} \def\epic{\end{picture}}
37: \def\akgt{\noindent{Acknowledgements}}
38: \def\fgn{\noindent{\bf\large\bf figure captions}}
39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \begin{eqnarray*} \end{eqnarray} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: \def\lan{\langle}
42: \def\ran{\rangle}
43: \def\p{\pi}
44: \def\ifmath#1{\relax\ifmmode #1\else $#1$\fi}%
45: \def\rc{\ifmath{{\mathrm{c}}}}
46: \def\cut{\ifmath{{\mathrm{cut}}}}
47: \def\rF{\ifmath{{\mathrm{F}}}}
48: \def\rK{\ifmath{{\mathrm{K}}}}
49: \def\rp{\ifmath{{\mathrm{p}}}}
50: \def\rt{\ifmath{{\mathrm{t}}}}
51: \def\LAB{\ifmath{{\mathrm{LAB}}}}
52: \def\cut{\ifmath{{\mathrm{cut}}}}
53: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
54: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
55: \def\us{^{(s)}} \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}} \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
56: \def\nbr{\nonumber} \def\e{\eta} \def\dt{\delta} \def\D{\Delta}
57: \def\r{\rho}
58: \newcommand{\cinst}[2]{$^{\mathrm{#1}}$~#2\par}
59: \newcommand{\crefi}[1]{$^{\mathrm{#1}}$}
60: \newcommand{\crefii}[2]{$^{\mathrm{#1,#2}}$}
61: \newcommand{\crefiii}[3]{$^{\mathrm{#1,#2,#3}}$}
62: \newcommand{\HRule}{\rule{0.5\linewidth}{0.5mm}}
63:
64: \usepackage{color}
65: \newcommand{\Blue}[1]{\textcolor[named]{Blue}{#1}}
66: \newcommand{\blue}[1]{\textcolor[named]{Blue}{#1}}
67: \newcommand{\red}[1]{\textcolor[named]{Red}{#1}}
68: \newcommand{\violet}[1]{\textcolor[named]{Violet}{#1}}
69: \newcommand{\brown}[1]{\textcolor[named]{Brown}{#1}}
70: \newcommand{\green}[1]{\textcolor[named]{Green}{#1}}
71: \newcommand{\Red}[1]{\textcolor[named]{Red}{#1}}
72: \newcommand{\yellow}[1]{\textcolor[named]{Yellow}{#1}}
73: \newcommand{\magenta}[1]{\textcolor[named]{Magenta}{#1}}
74:
75: \bd
76: \title{Is there hydrodynamic flow at RHIC ?}
77: \author{Wang Meijuan}
78: \affiliation{Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal
79: University, Wuhan 430079, China} \author{Liu
80: Lianshou}\affiliation{Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong
81: Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China}
82: \affiliation{Key Laboratory of
83: Quak and Lepton Physics, Ministry of Education of China }
84: \author{ Wu Yuanfang} \affiliation{Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong
85: Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China}
86: \affiliation{Key Laboratory of
87: Quak and Lepton Physics, Ministry of Education of China }
88:
89: \begin{abstract}
90: It is argued that the observation of anisotropic azimuthal
91: distribution of final state particles alone is insufficient to
92: show whether the formed matter at RHIC behaves like hydrodynamic
93: flow. Examining the intrinsic interaction (or correlation) of the
94: formed matter should provide more definite judgement. To the end,
95: a spatial-dependent azimuthal multiplicity-correlation pattern is
96: suggested. It shows clearly in the pattern that there are two
97: kinds of interactions at the early stage of Au + Au collisions at
98: $\sqnn=200$ GeV generated by RQMD with hadron re-scattering and
99: AMPT with string melting. This is out of the expectation from the
100: elliptic flow driven by anisotropic expansion.
101: \end{abstract}
102:
103: \pacs{25.75.Ld, 25.75.Nq, 25.75.Gz}
104:
105:
106: \maketitle
107:
108: The data from current relativistic heavy ion experiments show that
109: a new form of matter --- quark-gluon plasma (QGP) has been
110: produced at RHIC~\cite{qgp, gulassys}. The second Fourier
111: coefficient $v_2$ of the anisotropic transverse-momentum $p_{\rm
112: T}$ distribution of final state particles is believed to provide
113: the anisotropic collective flow behavior at the early stage of
114: collision. The successful hydrodynamic description~\cite{mv2} on
115: the observed mass dependence of $v_2$ at $p_{\rm T} < 2$ GeV shows
116: that the observed dense matter behaves like a perfect fluid rather
117: than an ideal gas, and is, therefore, referred to as sQGP.
118:
119: However, hydrodynamics can still not quantitatively fit the
120: observed mass dependence of $v_2$~\cite{qgp, break}. The recently
121: measured elliptic flow $v_2$ from Cu +Cu collisions at 200 GeV is
122: unexpected as large as that from Au + Au collisions at the same
123: energy~\cite{phenix,trainor}. Moreover, the resulting matter may
124: be treated as hydrodynamic flow only if the initial interaction
125: among the constituents are sufficiently strong to establish local
126: thermal equilibrium rapidly, and then to maintain it over a
127: significant evolution time. No known strong-interaction process
128: could be thermalized on such a short timescale. A Liquid without
129: viscosity is also hard to be understood
130: theoretically~\cite{viscosity}. So, there appear a number of
131: alternative non-equilibrium treatments, which have also been
132: compared to RHIC data~\cite{bmuller,rudy,yezhov}.
133:
134: To conclusively clarify the debate, a direct experimental
135: examination on the intrinsic interaction of the formed matter is
136: neccessary. The hydrodynamic flow at RHIC is supposed to be driven
137: by the so called anisotropic expansion. In non-central collisions,
138: the initial participant zone of the two colliding nuclei is
139: approximately an ellipse, and the density gradient along the short
140: side of ellipse is larger than that along the long side. It is
141: argued that the larger density, or pressure, gradient along the
142: short side of ellipse makes collective expansion to be privileged
143: in this direction, i.e., the anisotropic expansion, producing
144: in-plane elliptic flow, or the transverse-momentum of final state
145: particles distribute in an ellipse perpendicular to the one in
146: coordinate space.
147:
148: However, the main physical quantity which can be extracted from
149: experimental data in exploiting relativistic hydrodynamic approach
150: is the elliptic flow parameter $v_2$. It only indicates the
151: possible preferential direction of expansion and contains no
152: information on the intrinsic interaction of the formed matter. It
153: therefore is insufficient to assure whether the formed matter
154: behaves like hydrodynamic flow.
155:
156: If the anisotropic expansion is the only driver of the elliptic
157: flow, the distribution of intrinsic interaction (or correlation)
158: of flow should have the same anisotropy, i.e., in-plane like.
159: Moreover, if it is really hydrodynamic flow, it should be well
160: locally thermalized and reach thermal equilibrium. Then all other
161: interaction history before anisotropic expansion should be
162: forgotten. These characteristics can be examined in an
163: experimentally measurable correlation pattern.
164:
165: In this letter, we will first introduce the spatially-dependent
166: correlation pattern, i.e., neighboring angular-bin multiplicity
167: correlation pattern. Then, we demonstrate that at least two kind
168: of interactions are revealed by the suggested correlation pattern
169: in Au + Au collisions at 200GeV, generated by RQMD~\cite{rqmd} and
170: AMPT~\cite{ampt}. Finally, how to experimentally measure the
171: correlation pattern and anisotropic correlation coefficient is
172: discussed.
173:
174: To examine the intrinsic interaction of highly anisotropic system,
175: a spatial-dependent bin-bin correlation is called for.
176: Conventionally, the spatially averaged bin-bin correlation has
177: been used in multiparticle production in exploring self-similar
178: fractality~\cite{bialas}, where the system is supposed to be
179: homogeneous, and only scaling in the shrinking of phase space is
180: concerned. Another intrinsic interaction related measure is the
181: 2-particle azimuthal correlation~\cite{2par,phenix}. It concerns
182: the average correlation of two particles separated by a certain
183: angle, no matter where the two particles are in the azimuthal
184: space. It therefore can not tell us where the preferential
185: direction of intrinsic interactions are.
186:
187: The newly suggested {\it spatial-dependent} neighboring bin
188: correlation pattern~\cite{wu-pre} provides a typical spatial
189: distribution of two-bin correlation. The information on intrinsic
190: correlation can be well presented by the measure, and it should
191: give more direct and definite judgement on the properpty of the
192: formed matter at RHIC.
193:
194: It is well-known that the general 2-bin correlation is defined as
195: \beq C_{m_1,m_2}= \frac{\langle n_{m_1} n_{m_2} \rangle}{\langle
196: n_{m_1} \rangle \langle n_{m_2} \rangle}-1, \eeq \noindent where
197: $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the positions of the two bins in phase space
198: and $n_m$ is the measured content in the $m$th bin.
199:
200: We divide the $2\pi$ azimuthal angle equally into $M$ bins and
201: specify $n_m$ as the multiplicity in the $m$th angular bin. If we
202: let $m_1=m$ and $m_2=m+1$, $C_{m_1,m_2}$ is reduced to the {\it
203: neighboring angular-bin multiplicity correlation pattern}, \beq
204: C_{m,m+1}=\frac{\langle n_{m}n_{m+1}\rangle}{\langle
205: n_{m}\rangle\langle n_{m+1}\rangle}-1. \eeq \noindent It is clear
206: that the correlation pattern measures how the nearby particles
207: correlate with each other in different directions of azimuthal
208: space. If the particles are produced independently in the whole
209: phase space, then $\langle n_mn_{m+1}\rangle=\langle
210: n_m\rangle\langle n_{m+1}\rangle$, and $C_{m_1,m_2}$ vanishes.
211:
212: In order to apply this correlation pattern to current relativistic
213: heavy ion collision, we choose the RQMD and AMPT models as
214: examples. The RQMD (relativistic quantum molecular dynamics) with
215: re-scattering is a hadron-based transport model~\cite{rqmd}. The
216: final hadron interactions are implemented in the model by hadron
217: re-scattering. The anisotropic collective flow produced by the
218: model is much smaller than the observed data at RHIC. In contrary
219: to the RQMD model, the AMPT is a multi-phase transport model,
220: where both hadron and parton interactions are taken into account.
221: In the AMPT with string melting, the parton level transport is
222: fully taken into account, and the observed anisotropic collective
223: flow at RHIC is well reproduced~\cite{ampt}.
224:
225: For Au + Au collisions at $\sqnn=200$ GeV, we generate 249,824 and
226: 204,004 events using RQMD with hadron re-scattering and AMPT with
227: string melting, respectively. Their neighboring angular-bin
228: multiplicity correlation patterns are shown in Fig.~1(a) by open
229: and solid circles, respectively. Here we partition the whole
230: azimuthal range $2\pi$ uniformly into 50 equal size angular bins.
231: $\phi =0$ refers to the direction of the reaction plane in nuclear
232: collision. The errors are statistical only and most of them are
233: smaller than the symbol size in this and following figures. It is
234: clearly shown in Fig.~1(a) that correlation patterns from these
235: two models are $-\cos2\phi$ (out-of-plane) like, opposite to the
236: well-known $\cos2\phi$ (in-plane) liked azimuthal distribution.
237: This is in contrary to the expectation that the formed matter
238: expands collectively toward in-plane direction. Some unexpected
239: interactions should be responsible for such a result.
240:
241: In order to see how the results come, the centrality dependence of
242: neighboring angular-bin multiplicity correlation patterns from
243: these two models are presented in Fig.~1(b) and (c), respectively,
244: where three typical centralities are specified in the legends. One
245: can observe that the two models give qualitatively the same
246: centrality dependence of azimuthal correlation pattern. The
247: correlation patterns are $\cos2\phi$ like in peripheral
248: collisions, then turn to flat in mid-central collisions, and
249: become $-\cos2\phi$ like in near-central collisions. Here, we
250: present only three centrality ranges to show their typical
251: behavior. In fact, the correlation pattern changes gradually from
252: $\cos2\phi$ to $-\cos2\phi$ with centrality. It is clear that two
253: opposite trends dominate in peripheral and near-central
254: collisions, respectively. In the mid-central collisions, the two
255: trends turn to balance and the correlations become equal in all
256: directions. Moreover, these characteristics are independent of the
257: specific assumptions implemented in the two models, in particular
258: independent of the hadronization schemes assumed in the models.
259:
260: \begin{figure}
261: \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{fig1.epsi}
262: \caption{\label{Fig. 1} (a)The neighboring angular-bin correlation
263: patterns for Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV from the RQMD with
264: re-scattering and AMPT with string melting. The centrality
265: dependence of the correlation patterns from (b)the RQMD with
266: re-scattering , and (c) AMPT with string melting.}
267: \end{figure}
268:
269: The characteristics of correlation pattern reveal that there are
270: two opposite intrinsic interactions in the formed matter in these
271: two transport models. One has the same preferential direction as
272: the anisotropic expansion. The other one is opposite to it. This
273: also shows that the anisotropic azimuthal distribution is not only
274: driven by anisotropic expansion. It is resulted from the
275: combination of these two opposite interactions.
276:
277: The anisotropic expansion and the late hadronization are
278: impossible to produce strong correlations in out-of-plane
279: direction. Only the initial source eccentricity in non-central
280: collisions is preferential in the direction. It results in a
281: larger initial number of participant nucleons in the out-of-plane
282: direction, which in turn could generate stronger interaction in
283: the direction. As long as the system is not fully thermalized,
284: this initial interaction will compete with the subsequent
285: anisotropic expansion.
286:
287: In peripheral collisions, the overlap zone is small and so is the
288: number of participant nucleons, but the difference between the
289: minor and major axes of overlap ellipse is large, and so is the
290: difference of pressure gradients. In this case the anisotropic
291: expansion dominates the final observables, and the effects of
292: initial interaction in correlation patterns are hidden. In
293: near-central collisions, the overlap zone becomes large and the
294: difference between minor and major axes of ellipse is small, so
295: that the initial interactions are strong enough to show themselves
296: up in final observable. This is why the out-of-plane correlation
297: patterns appear at near-central collisions.
298:
299: So the behavior of the formed matter in these two transport models
300: are far from the flow in relativistic hydrodynamics sense. This is
301: out of the current expectation for the formed matter at RHIC.
302: Measuring the correlation pattern by the data of relativistic
303: heavy ion collisions at RHIC and LHC is therefore looking forward.
304: As long as the observed preferential direction of correlation
305: pattern are different from that of its azimuthal distribution,
306: such as what we show by transport models, then there should be no
307: hydrodynamic flow at RHIC. On the other hand, if the
308: experimentally measured correlation pattern has the same
309: anisotropy as its azimuthal distribution, it will be a strong
310: support to the current expectation at intrinsic interaction level
311: that the formed matter at RHIC indeed behaves like hydrodynamic
312: flow.
313:
314: The correlation patterns are typical periodic functions of
315: azimuthal angle in peripheral and central collisions, as shown in
316: Fig.~1. So they can be well expanded by Fourier series, \beq
317: C_{\phi,\phi+\delta\phi}= C \f[ 1+\sum_{i=1}
318: 2u_i\cos(i(\phi-\psi_r)) \g], \eeq where the $\psi_r$ is the
319: direction of reaction plane, and is zero in the model analysis.
320: But in real experimental data analysis, it has to be determined
321: event-by-event, and thereby refers to event-plane. It has been
322: carefully estimated in the measurement of anisotropic elliptic
323: flow $v_2$ in current relativistic heavy
324: experiments~\cite{phi-r,starflow}. The main contribution in the
325: expansion series comes from $\cos2(\phi-\psi_r)$. Its coefficient
326: $u_2$ provides the preferential direction and strength of
327: anisotropic correlation pattern. We specify it as {\it anisotropic
328: correlation coefficient} (ACC). It will make the systematic study
329: of the correlation pattern easy.
330:
331: \begin{figure}
332: \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{fig2.eps}
333: \caption{\label{Fig. 2} (a) Transverse-momentum and (b) rapidity
334: dependence of $u_2$ at three centralities for Au + Au collision at
335: 200GeV from RQMD with re-scattering.}
336: \end{figure}
337:
338: It is interesting to see how ACC, $u_2$, depends on the
339: transverse-momentum $p_t$ of final state particles, in comparison
340: to the corresponding $p_t$ dependence of $v_2$. It is known that
341: the evolution schemes of RQMD with re-scattering and AMPT with
342: string are different. In the former, the $p_t$ spectrum is
343: determined by the temperature of thermal source. High $p_t$
344: particles are emitted early at high temperature and low $p_t$ ones
345: are emitted later on at low temperature. The range of $p_t$ of
346: final state particles is related to its emitting
347: proper-time~\cite{rqmd}. So the $p_t$ dependence of $u_2$ in RQMD
348: with re-scattering will present how the correlation pattern
349: changes with evolution.
350:
351: The results are presented in Fig.~2(a). We can see that in each
352: $p_t$ interval, $u_2$ keeps positive in peripheral collisions,
353: becomes negative for mid-central collisions, and becomes even more
354: negative for central collisions. They are similar to that for all
355: $p_t$ particles shown in Fig.~1(b). It should also be noticed in
356: Fig.~2(a) that $u_2$ is almost independent of the choice of $p_t$
357: ranges of final state particles in peripheral and mid-central
358: collisions, but decrease rapidly with the increase of $p_t$ in
359: central collision. This is understandable since high $p_t$
360: particles are emitted earlier, and less influenced by the later
361: anisotropic expansion in central collisions.
362:
363: On the contrary, each parton in the AMPT with string melting has
364: its own freeze-out time, which span a long period after the
365: initial interaction of the two nuclei, and are unrelated to each
366: parton's transverse momentum~\cite{liu-yu, ampt}. So similar $p_t$
367: dependence of $u_2$ can be observed in this model only when the
368: chosen interval of $p_t$ is very large.
369:
370: The rapidity dependence of ACC, $u_2$, is further studied by these
371: two transport models. They give qulitatively the same dependency.
372: The results from RQMD are presented in Fig.~2(b), where three
373: typical rapidity ranges, i.e., forward, backward and central
374: rapidity ranges, are chosen. It shows that the correlation pattern
375: is independent of the choice of rapidity range, and similar to
376: that in the whole rapidity space. So in finite rapidity ranges of
377: current relativistic heavy ion experiments~\cite{starflow},
378: studying the correlation pattern and anisotropic correlation
379: coefficient is expectable, and will provide more definite evidence
380: on whether or not the formed matter behaves like hydrodynamic
381: flow.
382:
383: To the summary, it is argued that the observation of anisotropic
384: azimuthal distribution of final state particles alone is
385: insufficient to assure whether the formed matter at RHIC behaves
386: like hydrodynamic flow. Examining the intrinsic interaction (or
387: correlation) of the formed matter should provide more definite
388: judgement. To the end, a spatially-dependent azimuthal
389: multiplicity-correlation pattern is suggested. It shows clearly
390: that there are two kinds of interactions at early stage of Au + Au
391: collisions at $\sqnn=200$ GeV, generated by RQMD with hadron
392: re-scattering and AMPT with string melting. One is in-plane
393: preferential as expected from anisotropic expansion due to initial
394: eccentricity in non-central collisions. Another new one is
395: out-of-plane preferential, which may be resulted from the larger
396: initial number of participant nucleons in these direction. These
397: characters of correlation pattern show at least in two transport
398: models that the formed matter does not behave like hydrodynamic
399: flow, in contrary to current expectation. Finally, how to
400: experimentally measure the correlation pattern and anisotropic
401: correlation coefficient is discussed.
402:
403: The authers would thank Dr. Nu Xu, Aihong Tang and Huangzhong Huan
404: for their stimulating comments. We are grateful for the financial
405: supports from the NSFC of China under projects: No. 90503001,
406: 10610285, 10775056.
407:
408: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
409:
410: \bibitem{qgp} K. Adcox et al.(PHENIX Collaboration), Nucl. Phys.
411: A{\bf 757}, 184-283(2005), nucl-ex/0410003; John Adams et al.(STAR
412: Collaboration), Nucl.Phys.A{\bf 757}, 102-183(2005),
413: nucl-ex/0501009; B. B. Back et al.(PHOBOS Collaboration), Nucl.
414: Phys. A{\bf 757}, 28-101(2005), nucl-ex/0410022; I. Arsene et
415: al.(BRAHMS Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A{\bf 757}, 1-27(2005),
416: nucl-ex/0410020.
417:
418: \bibitem{gulassys} Miklos Gyulassy, Larry McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A{\bf 750}
419: 30-63(2005). B. M\"uller, Annu. Rev. Nucl. and Part. Phys.,
420: 1(2006).
421:
422: \bibitem{mv2}H. Sorge, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 402}; ibid., Phys. Rev. Lett.
423: {\bf 82}, 2048(1999); D. Moln\'ar and M Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys.
424: A{\bf 697}, 495(2002).
425:
426: \bibitem{break} U. Heinz, J. Phys. G {\bf 31}, s717-s724(2005); B.
427: Alver et al. (PHOBOS), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 98}, 242302(2007);
428:
429: \bibitem{phenix}A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 98},
430: 162301(2007); T. Hirano, M. Isse, Y. Nara, A. Ohnishi, and K.
431: Yoshino, Phys. Rev. {\bf C72}, 0411901(2005).
432:
433: \bibitem{trainor}Thomas A. Trainor, arXiv:0803.4002.
434:
435: \bibitem{viscosity} P.Kovtun, D.T.Son, A.O.Starinets
436: Journal-ref: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 111601(2005); G.
437: Policastro, D.T. Son, A.O. Starinets Journal-ref: Phys.Rev.Lett.
438: {\bf 87}, 081601(2001) .
439:
440: \bibitem{bmuller}M. Asakawa, S. A. Bass, B. M\"uller, and C.
441: Nonaka, arXiv:0803.2449.
442:
443: \bibitem{rudy}R. C. Hwa, arXiv:0708.1508; R. C. Rudy, C. B.
444: Yang, arXiv:0801.2183.
445:
446: \bibitem{yezhov} D. V. Anchishkin, S. N. Yezhov, arXiv:0804.1745.
447:
448: %\bibitem{aflow} H. Sorge, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 402}, 251(1997).
449:
450: %\bibitem{rflow} Alejandro Ayala, Eleazar Cuautle, J. Magnin,
451: %Luis Manuel Montano, Phys. Rev. C{\bf 74}, 064903(2006),
452: %nucl-th/0603039.
453: \bibitem{bialas} A. Bialas, R. Peschanski. Nucl. Phys. B 273(1986) 703;
454: Nucl. Phys. B 308(1988) 857.
455:
456: \bibitem{2par} P. Bo\'zek, M. Ploszajczak, R. Botet, Phys.
457: Reports {\bf 252}, 101 (1995). E. A. De Wolf, I. M. Dremin and W.
458: Kittle, Phys. Reports {\bf 270}, 1(1995) \
459:
460: \bibitem{phenixc} K. Adcox, et al., (PHENIX Coll.),
461: Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 212301(2002)
462:
463: \bibitem{wu-pre} Wu Yuanfang, Lianshou Liu, Yingdan Wang, Yuting Bai
464: and Hongbo Liao, Phys. Rev. E{\bf 71}, 017103 (2005).
465:
466: \bibitem{rqmd} H. Sorge, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 52}, 3291 (1995).
467:
468: \bibitem{ampt} Zi-Wei Lin, Che Ming Ko, Bao-An Li, Bin Zhang
469: and Subrata Pal, Phys. Rev. C{\bf 72}, 064901 (2005).
470:
471: \bibitem{liu-yu}Yu Meiling, Du Jiaxin, Liu Lianshou,
472: Phys.Rev.C {\bf 74}, 044906 (2006).
473:
474: \bibitem{phi-r}A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C.
475: {\bf 58}, 1671(1998).
476:
477: \bibitem{starflow} John Adams et al.(STAR Collaboration),
478: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 252301(2004), nucl-ex/0407007; John
479: Adams et al.(STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95},
480: 122301(2005), nucl-ex/0504022.
481:
482: %\bibitem{wang-hangzhou} Wang Meijuan and Wu Yuanfang, Proc. of
483: %XXI Inter. Workshop on Correlation and fuctuation, Nov. 2006,
484: %Hangzhou, China, to be published in Inter. Jour. of Modern Phys.
485: %E.
486:
487: \bibitem{eccen}B. Alver, et al., arXiv:0711.3724.
488:
489: \end{thebibliography}
490:
491: \ed
492: