1: %%%%%%%%%% espcrc1.tex %%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % $Id: espcrc1.tex 1.2 2000/07/24 09:12:51 spepping Exp spepping $
4: %
5: \documentclass[12pt,twoside]{article}
6: \usepackage{fleqn,espcrc1}
7: \usepackage{epsfig}
8:
9: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09
10: %\documentstyle[12pt,twoside,fleqn,espcrc1]{article}
11:
12: % if you want to include PostScript figures
13: \usepackage{graphicx}
14: % if you have landscape tables
15: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
16:
17: % put your own definitions here:
18: % \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
19: % \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
20: % ...
21: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
22: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
23: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
24:
25: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
26: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}
27:
28: % declarations for front matter
29: \title{Event-by-event fluctuations in hydrodynamical description of
30: heavy-ion collisions\thanks{Work supported in part by FAPESP (contract nos. 2000/04422-7 and 98/00317-2), FAPERJ (contract no.E-26/150.942/99), PRONEX
31: (contract no. 41.96.0886.00) and CNPq-Brasil.}}
32:
33: \author{C.E. Aguiar\address[UFRJ]{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica/UFRJ, C.P. 68528,
34: 21945-970 Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brazil},
35: Y. Hama\address[USP]{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica/USP, C.P. 66318,
36: 05389-970 S\~ao Paulo - SP, Brazil},
37: T. Kodama\addressmark[UFRJ]
38: and
39: T. Osada\addressmark[USP]}
40:
41: \begin{document}
42:
43: \maketitle
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46: Effects caused by the event-by-event fluctuation of the initial conditions
47: in hydrodynamical description of high-energy heavy-ion collisions are
48: investigated.
49: Non-negligible effects appear for several observable quantities, even for
50: a fixed impact parameter $\vec b\,$. They are sensitive to the equation of
51: state, being the dispersions of the observable quantities in general
52: smaller when the QGP phase appears at the beginning of hydrodynamic evolution than
53: %as compared with the case
54: when the fluid remains hadron gas during whole
55: the evolution.
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \section{INTRODUCTION}
59:
60: In usual hydrodynamic description of high-energy heavy-ion collisions,
61: one customarily assumes some highly symmetric and smooth initial
62: conditions,
63: which correspond to mean distributions of velocity, temperature, energy
64: density, etc., averaged over several events. However, our systems are not
65: large enough, so large fluctuations are expected. What are the effects
66: of
67: the event-by-event fluctuation of the initial conditions? Are they sizable?
68: Do they depend on the equation of state? Which are the most sensitive
69: variables? These are some questions which arise regarding such
70: an initial-state fluctuation, and we try to shed some light on these
71: matters in the present
72: study\cite{prelim}.
73:
74: \section{METHOD OF STUDY}
75:
76: In order to study the problem stated above, first we generate events by
77: using the NeXus event generator\cite{nexus}, from which initial
78: conditions are computed at the time $\tau=1~$fm. Then, the hydrodynamic
79: equations are solved, starting from these initial conditions, assuming
80: some equation of state (EoS). To see the EoS dependence of the effects
81: we are treating, we consider two different EoS's\cite{hung}:
82: \begin{enumerate}
83: \item Resonance Gas (RG): $c_s\,^2=0.2\,$;
84: \item \[
85: \mbox{QGP+RG:}\ c_s\,^2=\left\{
86: \begin{array}{ll}
87: 0.2\,, & \varepsilon<0.28\,\mbox{GeV/fm}^3, \\
88: 0.056/\varepsilon, & \mbox{mixed phase}\,, \\
89: 1/3-4B/3\varepsilon, & \varepsilon>1.45\,\mbox{GeV/fm}^3.
90: \end{array}
91: \right.
92: \]
93: \end{enumerate}
94:
95: The resolution of the hydrodynamic equations deserves some special care,
96: since our initial conditions do not have any symmetry nor they are
97: smooth. We adopt the so-called smoothed-particle hydrodynamic (SPH)
98: approach\cite{sph}, first used in astrophysics and which we have
99: previously adapted for heavy-ion collisions\cite{spherio}, a method
100: flexible enough, giving a desired precision. The main characteristic of
101: SPH is the parametrization of the flow in terms of discrete Lagrangian
102: coordinates attached to small volumes (called ``particles'') with some conserved quantity. In the present work, besides the energy and momentum,
103: we took the entropy as our conserved quantity. Then, its density (in the
104: space-fixed frame) is parametrized as
105: \begin{equation}
106: s^*({\bf x},t)=\sum_i^N \nu_i~W({\bf x}-{\bf x}_{\,i}(t);h)~,
107: \end{equation}
108: where
109: \[
110: \left\{
111: \begin{array}{l}
112: W({\bf x}-{\bf x}_{\,i}(t);h)\mbox{ is a normalized kernel}; \\
113: {\bf x}_{\,i}(t)\mbox{ is the }i\mbox{-th particle position, so the
114: velocity is }{\bf v}_{\,i}=d{\bf x}_{\,i}/dt\ ; \\
115: h~\mbox{is the smoothing scale parameter;}
116: \end{array}
117: \right.
118: \]
119: and we have
120: \begin{equation}
121: S=\int\! d^3{\bf x}~s^*({\bf x},t)= \sum_i^N \nu_i ~.
122: \end{equation}
123:
124: The equations of motion are then written as the coupled equations
125: \begin{equation}
126: \frac{d}{dt}\left(\nu_i\frac{P_i+\varepsilon_i}{s_i}
127: \gamma_i{\bf v}_i\right)
128: + \sum_{j}\nu_j
129: \bigg[\frac{P_i}{{s^*_i}^2}+\frac{P_j}{{s^*_j}^2}\bigg]\,
130: {\bf\nabla}_i W({\bf x}_{\,i}-{\bf x}_{\,j};h)=0\,.\ \ \
131: \end{equation}
132:
133: Following this procedure, we computed some observable quantities,
134: event-by-event, for $\sqrt{s}=$130$A$GeV $Au+Au$ collisions. The results
135: are presented in the next Section.
136:
137: \section{RESULTS}
138:
139: \subsection{Elliptic flow coefficient $v_2$}
140:
141: Having solved the coupled equations (3), we have computed the particle
142: spectra at $T=m_\pi\,$ and from which the elliptic flow coefficient
143: $v_2\,$ on an event-by-event basis.
144: In Figure 1, we show its distributions for a fixed impact parameter $b$,
145: for the two EoS considered. As expected, $v_2$ exhibits a large
146: fluctuation, which depends on the EoS.
147: One should take care in looking at this Figure that our $b$ is the true
148: impact parameter (not determined in the way experimentalists do), so for
149: instance in the RG case, there are some events with negative $v_2\,$,
150: which experimentally would not appear.
151: As for the average values $<\!v_2\!>\,$, it is almost independent of
152: the EoS. This is shown in Figure 2, where $< v_2 >\pm\,\delta v_2$ is
153: plotted as function of the centrality and compared with data\cite{STAR}.
154: It is seen that $<\!v_2\!>$ reproduces well the experimental trend,
155: whereas the dispersions $\delta v_2$ are much wider than the experimental
156: errors. As for the EoS dependence, $\delta v_2$ is smaller when QGP is
157: produced.
158:
159: \begin{figure}[htb]
160: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
161: {\epsfysize=6.5cm \epsfig{file=Hama1a.eps}}
162: \end{minipage}
163: %
164: \hspace{\fill}
165: %
166: \begin{minipage}[t]{75mm}
167: {\epsfysize=6.5cm \epsfig{file=Hama1b.eps}}
168: \end{minipage}
169: \vspace*{-1.cm}
170: \caption{Distribution of elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ at $b=10~$fm for
171: two EoS.}
172: \end{figure}
173:
174: \medskip
175:
176: \begin{figure}[htb]
177: %[htb]
178: \begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
179: {\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfig{file=Hama2.eps}}
180: \vspace*{-1.cm}
181: \caption{EoS dependence of $< v_2 >\pm\,\delta v_2$ as function of the
182: centrality, compared with data\cite{STAR}. }
183: \end{minipage}
184: %
185: \hspace{\fill}
186: %
187: \begin{minipage}[t]{75mm}
188: {\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfig{file=Hama3.eps}}
189: \vspace*{-1.cm}
190: \caption{Pion $m_T$ spectra for 5 events ($b=7.0~$fm). }
191: \end{minipage}
192: \end{figure}
193:
194: \subsection{{\boldmath $m_T$} distributions}
195:
196: In Figure 3, we show the $m_T$ distributions for 5 events. As expected,
197: $m_T$ distributions are in general steeper when QGP is produced. As for
198: fluctuations, the resultant fluctuation in $m_T$ spectrum (or in the
199: slope parameter $\delta\tilde{T}$) is very small.
200:
201: \subsection{Multiplicity fluctuation in the mid-rapidity region}
202:
203: Table 1 summarizes the results of our study on multiplicity fluctuation
204: in the mid-rapidity region. It is seen that {\it i)} as $b\rightarrow0$,
205: $<n_\pi>$ becomes much larger with the QGP EoS; {\it ii)} $\delta n_\pi$
206: shows the same tendency in this limit; {\it iii)} As for the ratio
207: $\delta n_\pi/\!<n_\pi>$, it is not sensitive to the EoS.
208:
209: \begin{table}[htb]
210: \caption{EoS dependence of the multiplicity fluctuation in two different
211: rapidity intervals $-\Delta y<y<+\Delta y$, as function of the impact
212: parameter $b$.}
213: \label{table:1}
214: \newcommand{\m}{\hphantom{$-$}}
215: \newcommand{\cc}[1]{\multicolumn{1}{c}{#1}}
216: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} % enlarge line spacing
217: \newcommand{\lw}[1]{\smash{\lower2.0ex\hbox{#1}}}
218: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
219:
220: \begin{tabular}{rcr|rcc|rrc}
221: \hline
222: \lw{$b~$[fm]$\!\!$} & $\ $ \lw{EoS}$\ $ & \# of$\ \ $
223: &\multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\Delta y$=1.875} &
224: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\Delta y$=3.00} \\
225: \cline{4-9} & & $\ \ $events$\ $
226: &$\!<\!\!n\!\!>\ $&$\delta n$~&$\delta n/\!\!<\!\!n\!\!>$
227: &$\!<\!\!n\!\!>\ $&$\delta n\ \ $~&$\delta n/\!\!<\!\!n\!\!>$ \\
228: \hline
229: \lw{3.5} & RG & 44$\ \ \ $ & $\ $1029.7& $\ $46.2$\ $ & 0.045
230: & $\ \ $1623.2 & 68.7 & $\ $0.042$\ $ \\
231: & QGP & 38$\ \ \ $ & 1553.0& 80.9 & 0.052 &2544.6& 129.0 &0.051\\
232: \hline
233: \lw{7.0} & RG & 55$\ \ \ $ & 613.3 & 49.5 & 0.081 &977.4 & 71.6 &0.073\\
234: & QGP & 58$\ \ \ $ & 926.1 & 81.1 & 0.087 &1530.5& 123.7 &0.081\\
235: \hline
236: \lw{10.0} & RG &166$\ \ \ $ & 312.8 & 43.0 & 0.137 &506.1 & 65.8 &0.130\\
237: & QGP &180$\ \ \ $ & 437.5 & 66.5 & 0.151 &740.7 & 103.9 &0.140\\
238: \hline
239: \lw{12.0} & RG & 79$\ \ \ $ & 162.8 & 35.6 & 0.219 & 268.9 & 56.2 &0.209\\
240: & QGP &100$\ \ \ $ & 220.1 & 52.8 & 0.240 & 379.8 & 85.2 &0.224\\
241: \hline
242: \end{tabular}
243:
244: \end{table}
245:
246: \section{CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK}
247:
248: The present study shows that the effects of the event-by-event fluctuation
249: of the initial conditions in hydrodynamics are sizable and should be
250: considered in data analyses. They do depend on the equation of state.
251: Among the quantities examined here, $\delta v_2$ is the most sensitive to the equation of state.
252:
253: In the present work, many important factors have not been considered:
254: baryon-number conservation, strangeness production, resonance decays,
255: continuous emission effects, spectators, etc., which should indeed taken
256: into account in order to get more precise results.
257: Especially, use of the same procedure for the determination of the
258: centrality as used by experimentalists, as in\cite{STAR}, will make the
259: results more directly comparable with data.
260: In any event, we believe that the effects we studied will be present
261: and will be sizable, even with these improvements.
262:
263: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
264: \bibitem{prelim} The preliminary version appeared in T. Osada, C.E. Aguiar,
265: Y. Hama and T.~Kodama, {\it Event-by-event analysis of
266: ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions in smoothed
267: particle hydrodynamics}, arXiv: nucl-th/0102011.
268: \bibitem{nexus} H.J. Drescher, M. Hladik, S. Ostrapchenko, T. Pierog and
269: K. Werner, J.Phys. {\bf G25} (1999) L91; Nucl.Phys.
270: {\bf A661} (1999) 604.
271: \bibitem{hung} C.M. Hung and E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}
272: (1995) 4003.
273: \bibitem{sph} L.B. Lucy, Ap. J. {\bf 82} (1977) 1013; R.A. Gingold and
274: J.J. Monaghan, Mon.Not.R.Astr.Soc. {\bf 181} (1977) 375.
275: \bibitem{spherio} C.E. Aguiar, T. Kodama, T. Osada and Y. Hama, J.Phys.
276: {\bf G27} (2001) 75, and references therein.
277: \bibitem{STAR} STAR Collaboration, K.H.~Ackermann {\it et al.},
278: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 402.
279: \end{thebibliography}
280:
281: \end{document}