1:
2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}\pagestyle{empty}
3: \textwidth=14cm \textheight=20cm \topmargin=0cm \oddsidemargin=1cm
4: \let\section=\subsection \let\subsection=\subsubsection
5: \renewcommand\thesubsection{\arabic{subsection}}
6:
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \begin{center}
11: {\large \bf THERMAL MODEL AT RHIC:}\\[2mm]
12: {\large \bf PARTICLE RATIOS AND $p_\perp$ SPECTRA}\\[5mm]
13: Wojciech BRONIOWSKI and Wojciech FLORKOWSKI \\[5mm]
14: {\small \it The H. Niewodnicza\'nski Institute of Nuclear Physics \\
15: PL-31342 Cracow, POLAND \\[8mm] }
16: \end{center}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}\noindent
19: Predictions of the single-freeze-out model for the particle
20: spectra at RHIC are presented. The model assumes that the
21: chemical and thermal freeze-outs occur simultaneously, and
22: incorporates in simple terms the
23: longitudinal and transverse flow. All resonance decays
24: are included. The model predictions
25: and the data are in striking agreement in the whole available
26: range of momenta.
27: \end{abstract}
28:
29:
30: Much has been said during this Workshop on the predictions for the particle
31: ratios within the thermal approach (see the contribution by J. Stachel),
32: hence in this talk we concentrate
33: entirely on the $p_\perp$ spectra \cite{wbwf,wbwfs}.
34: We only wish to mention that
35: our study \cite{wfwbmm} of the
36: particle ratios at RHIC
37: confirms, within statistical errors,
38: the results of \cite{pbmrhic}, with the following values of the
39: thermal parameters:
40: \begin{equation}
41: T=165 \pm 7 \hbox{ MeV}, \,\,\mu_{B}=41 \pm 5 \hbox{ MeV}.
42: \label{thermo}
43: \end{equation}
44: Strangeness conservation gives $\mu_S=9$ MeV, and isospin asymmetry
45: of the gold nuclei yields $\mu_I=-1$ MeV. For more details, review of the
46: thermal models, and references, see \cite{mm}.
47:
48:
49: Our model for the spectra incorporates the following assumptions:
50:
51: \begin{enumerate}
52:
53: \item Chemical and thermal freeze-outs occur {\em simultaneously}
54: on a freeze-out hypersurface.
55: In other words, elastic rescattering after the freeze-out is neglected.
56: This simplification, which opposes the traditional picture with
57: two distinct freeze-outs at noticeably different temperatures,
58: works very well, as can be seen from our figures.
59: Note that rapid expansion of the system inhibits the collision rate.
60: Also, the Van der Waals corrections discussed at the end of this talk
61: make the system more dilute at freeze-out, reducing its opacity.
62: Arguments hinting rapid expansion have also been presented in the
63: contributions by H. Appelsh\"auser and T. Hirano.
64:
65: \item At freeze-out the particles are distributed according to the
66: statistical distribution functions. The two thermodynamic
67: parameters (\ref{thermo})
68: are obtained from the analysis of the ratios of the particle multiplicities.
69: Since these depend rather weakly on centrality, we treat the thermal
70: parameters as universal.
71:
72: \item The resonances are treated in a {\em complete}
73: way, with all particles from
74: the PDG tables incorporated. Their sequential decays are included exactly,
75: in a semi-analytic fashion. The role of the resonances is very important,
76: resulting in substantial ``cooling'' of the spectra \cite{wfwbmm}.
77:
78: \item The freeze-out hypersurface is a simple generalization of the Bjorken
79: model. It
80: is parameterized with two geometric parameters specified below:
81: the invariant time, $\tau$, and the transverse radius, $\rho_{\rm max}$.
82: For simplicity, Hubble-like expansion is assumed, with the four-velocity
83: proportional to the coordinate, $u^\mu = x^\mu/\tau$. Clearly, other
84: parameterizations of the fire-ball expansion,
85: {\em e.g.} those following from the hydrodynamic evolution in various
86: models, can be implemented and tested.
87:
88: \item The {\em only} parameters of the model are the two universal thermal
89: parameters (\ref{thermo})
90: and the two geometric parameters, $\tau$ and $\rho_{\rm max}$
91: (different for each centrality).
92:
93: \end{enumerate}
94:
95:
96:
97: The parameterization of the freeze-out hypersurface, taken
98: in the spirit of the Buda-Lund model \cite{buda}, is as follows:
99: $$t = {\rm ch} \alpha _{\parallel} \sqrt{\tau^2+\rho^2},
100: \quad {z}={\rm sh} \alpha _{\parallel} \sqrt{\tau^2+\rho^2}, \quad
101: {x} = \rho \cos \phi ,\quad {y}=\rho \sin \phi,$$
102: with $\rho \le \rho_{\rm max}$.
103: The parameter $\tau$ fixes the
104: overall normalization of the spectra, while the ratio
105: $\rho_{\rm max}/\tau$ determines their shape.
106: The standard Cooper-Frye formalism is applied to obtain the
107: spectra. The details of our procedure, including the technicalities of the
108: resonance decays, are given in the Appendix of Ref. \cite{wbwfs}.
109:
110:
111:
112: Fig. 1 shows our results for the
113: PHENIX minimum-bias data at $\sqrt{s}=130$ GeV A \cite{velko}. The
114: fitted values of the geometric parameters are
115: $\tau = 5.55$ fm and $\rho_{\rm max} = 4.50$ fm. We note
116: excellent agreement in the whole available data range, with the
117: magnitude of the spectra
118: spanned over five decades. Virtually all
119: points are crossed by the model curves within error bars. Similar agreement,
120: not shown, has been
121: found for $\pi^0$. Note that all the non-trivial experimental features
122: are reproduced in Fig. 1. In particular, we find the convex shape of the pion
123: spectra, the crossing of $p$ and $\pi^+$ around $p_\perp = 2$ GeV, and of
124: $K^+$ and
125: \begin{center}
126: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{minbo.eps}\\
127: \parbox{14cm}
128: {{\footnotesize
129: Fig.~1: Predictions of the single-freeze-out model for the
130: particle spectra at mid-rapidity vs. the PHENIX
131: minimum-bias data.}}
132: \end{center}
133: \noindent
134: $\pi^+$ around 1 GeV (we note in passing that a similar effect of
135: crossing occurs for the SPS data plotted in the $p_\perp$ variable,
136: {\em cf.} Fig. 3). The model results at $p_\perp >2$ GeV should be taken
137: with a grain of salt, since hard processes are expected to be important
138: in that region (see the talk by P. Levai).
139:
140: Fig. 2 shows our results for the most central collisions at RHIC, where we
141: find from the fit
142: $\tau = 7.66$ fm and $\rho_{\rm max} = 6.69$ fm \cite{wbwf}.
143: These numbers are,
144: as expected from geometry,
145: larger than for the minimum-bias case, which averages over centralities.
146: The data in Fig. 2 come from
147: \cite{velko,harris,yama,snellings}.
148: All data except for $\overline{\Lambda}$ are absolutely normalized.
149: The normalization for $\overline{\Lambda}$, not available experimentally in
150: \cite{snellings},
151: has been adjusted arbitrarily. We have found later that this norm
152: is consistent with the newly-released normalized data of \cite{bel}.
153: The curves for other hyperons are predictions.
154: Again, the agreement in Fig. 2 is remarkable,
155: except for the $\overline{p}$ data from
156: STAR, however these data have been corrected for weak decays through the use
157: of the HIJING model \cite{harris}, which led to about 20\% decrease.
158: Our model curves in all plots
159: include the full feeding from the weak decays.
160: The fact that our approach reproduces the $\overline{p}$ yields brings a
161: support for the single-freeze-out idea. This is because the
162: large annihilation cross section of $\overline{p}$ would decrease its
163: abundance if it
164: \begin{center}
165: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{strange4.eps}\\
166: \parbox{14cm}
167: {{\footnotesize
168: Fig.~2: Same as Fig. 1 for the most-central data from STAR (open
169: symbols) and PHENIX (filled symbols) .}}
170: \end{center}
171: \noindent
172: interacted with the protons. Thus the single-freeze-out
173: solves the anti-baryon puzzle discussed in the talk by R. Rapp.
174: The fact that the $\phi$ data are well reproduced also deserves a credit.
175: This meson interacts rather weakly with the medium, thus it can serve as
176: an accurate thermometer of the system at freeze-out.
177: Fits of similar quality as in Fig. 2 can be found
178: for non-central collisions.
179:
180: The value of $\rho_{\rm max}$ of Fig. 2
181: leads to the following values of the
182: average and maximum transverse flow velocity:
183: $\langle \beta_\perp \rangle = 0.49$, $\beta^{\rm max}_\perp = 0.66$.
184:
185:
186: Fig. 3 shows the model fits to the most central NA49 data. For all
187: particles very reasonable agreement is achieved,
188: except for the $\Omega^-$ (not shown), where the model slope is much too
189: low.
190:
191:
192: Now we remark on the problem of the HBT radii. As pointed out in the talk by
193: D. Hardtke, our transverse size $\rho_{\rm max}$ is small, such that
194: the expected value of $R_s$ would be too low, of the order of 3.5 fm.
195: However, there are two
196: important effect which increase $R_s$. The first is the decay of resonances.
197: The resonances travel about of 1 fm before they decay, which
198: increases the radius. Since three quarters of pions come
199: from resonance decays, this increases $R_s$. The other, more pronounced,
200: effect is the excluded volume/Van der Waals
201: correction. The excluded volume correction brings in a factor of
202: $(1+ v n)^{-1}$,
203: where $v \simeq 5$ fm$^3$ is the eigenvolume of the particle
204: (assumed, for simplicity, the same for all particles)
205: and $n \simeq 0.5 {\rm fm}^{-3}$ is the density
206: of particles. Another factor comes from the modification of
207: the chemical potential, and
208: (for the Boltzmann distributions) has the form $\exp(-pv/T)$, where
209: $p$ is the pressure.
210: \begin{center}
211: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{sps2.eps}\\
212: \parbox{14cm}
213: {{\footnotesize
214: Fig.~3: Same as Fig. 1 for the SPS NA49 data
215: (Nucl. Phys. {\bf A610} (1996) 188c; Phys. Lett. {\bf B444} (1998) 523;
216: Phys. Lett. {\bf B491} (2000) 59).}}
217: \end{center}
218: \noindent
219: The product
220: of these factors, which we denote by $s$,
221: is significantly smaller than 1.
222: It changes the normalization of the
223: integrals for the particle multiplicities and
224: spectra. It can be compensated by
225: simultaneously rescaling $\tau$ and $\rho_{\rm max}$ by
226: $s^{-1/3}$. The procedure leaves the particle ratios and the spectra intact (!),
227: however, it scales up the HBT radii by $s^{-1/3}$. A detailed
228: self-consistent inclusion of the Van der Waals corrections is necessary
229: to obtain detailed estimates. We expect that the needed 50-60\%
230: increase will follow naturally. Hence, our approach has no
231: fundamental problem with the size of the HBT radii,
232: provided the resonance decays and the
233: Van der Waals effect is incorporated. Also, with the
234: inclusion of the Van der Waals effects the size parameters
235: are raised comfortably above the geometric size of the gold nuclei, making
236: room and time for the collective flow to develop.
237: Certainly, it is important to see in detail what are the predictions of our
238: model for all HBT radii, in particular for the ratios, where most
239: approaches have serious problems. This research is under way.
240:
241:
242: In conclusion, the agreement with the
243: $p_\perp$ spectra for all
244: species of particles, achieved
245: with just two thermal and two geometric parameters, is surprisingly good
246: {\em cf.} Figs. 1-2. Thus, our analysis
247: provides a very strong support for the thermal approach
248: to the particle production at RHIC.
249:
250: \bigskip
251:
252: We are very grateful to Marek Ga\'zdzicki for numerous
253: clarifying discussions.
254: This work has been supported by the Polish State Committee for
255: Scientific Research, grant 2 P03B 09419.
256:
257: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
258:
259: \itemsep=0cm
260:
261: \bibitem{wbwf} W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski,
262: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87} (2001) 272302.
263:
264: \bibitem{wbwfs} W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski,
265: nucl-th/0112043.
266:
267: \bibitem{wfwbmm} W. Florkowski, W. Broniowski, and M. Michalec,
268: Acta Phys. Pol. {\bf B33} (2002) 761.
269:
270: \bibitem{pbmrhic} P. Braun-Munzinger, D. Magestro, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel,
271: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 518} (2001) 41.
272:
273: \bibitem{mm} M. Michalec, Ph. D. Thesis, nucl-th/0112044.
274:
275: \bibitem{buda} T. Cs\"{o}rg\H{o} and B. L\"{o}rstad, Phys. Rev. {\bf
276: C54} (1996) 1390.
277:
278: \bibitem{velko} J. Velkovska, PHENIX Collaboration, Proceedings of
279: QM2001, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A698} (2002) 507.
280:
281: \bibitem{harris} J. Harris, STAR Collaboration, contribution to QM2001.
282:
283: \bibitem{yama} E. T. Yamamoto, hep-ph/0112017.
284:
285: \bibitem{snellings} R. Snellings, STAR Collaboration, hep-ph/0111437.
286:
287: \bibitem{bel} R. Bellwied, STAR Collaboration, hep-ph/0112250.
288:
289: \end{thebibliography}
290:
291: \end{document}
292: