1: \documentclass[a4paper,twoside,notoc,11pt]{JHEP3}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig,multicol} \usepackage{delarray,amsmath,bbm}
4:
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %%%%%%%%%%%% Options: preprint* published, (no)hyper*, paper, draft,
7: %%%%%%%%%%%% a4paper*, letterpaper, legalpaper, executivepaper
8: %%%%%%%%%%%% 11pt, 12pt*, oneside*, twoside
9: %%%%%%%%%%%% *=default
10: %%%%%%%%%%%% \title{...}
11: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\\...}
12: %%%%%%%%%%%% \email{...}
13: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\thanks{...}\\...}
14: %%%%%%%%%%%% \abstract{...}
15: %%%%%%%%%%%% \keywords{...}
16: %%%%%%%%%%%% \preprint{...}
17: %%%%%%%%%%%% or \received{...} \accepted{...} \JHEP{...}
18: %%%%%%%%%%%% \dedicated{...}
19: %%%%%%%%%%%% \aknowledgments
20: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No pagestyle formatting.
21: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No size formatting.
22: %%%%%%%%%%%% Your definitions:
23: %%%%%%%%%%% MINE :)
24:
25: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134} % \backslash for \tt (Nucl.Phys. :)%
26: \newcommand\fverb{\setbox\pippobox=\hbox\bgroup\verb} \newcommand\fverbdo{\egroup\medskip\noindent% \fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}\
27: } \newcommand\fverbit{\egroup\item[\fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}]}
28: \newbox\pippobox
29:
30: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber} \newcommand{\beq} {\begin{equation}}
31: \newcommand{\eeq} {\end{equation}} \newcommand{\beqa}
32: {\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\eeqa} {\end{eqnarray}}
33: \newcommand{\mrm}[1] {{\mathrm{#1}}}
34:
35: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}} \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
36: \newcommand{\cf}{{\it cf.}} \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}
37:
38: \newcommand{\gev}{{\mrm{GeV}}} \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}
39: \newcommand{\lqcd}{\Lambda_{QCD}} \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}
40: \newcommand{\ieps}{i\varepsilon} \newcommand{\order}[1]{${\cal
41: O}\left(#1 \right)$} \newcommand{\morder}[1]{{\cal O}\left(#1 \right)}
42: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
43:
44: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\vert{#1}\rangle}
45: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle{#1}\vert}
46: \newcommand{\ave}[1]{\langle{#1}\rangle}
47: \newcommand{\com}[2]{\left[{#1},{#2}\right]}
48: \newcommand{\tr}{\mathrm{Tr}\,} \newcommand{\trs}[1]{\tr{\left\{ {#1}
49: \right\}}} \newcommand{\prm}{\textrm{ .}}
50: \newcommand{\mati}[2]{{_{#1}^{\ {#2}}\,}}
51:
52: \newcommand{\pvec}{{\bf p}} \newcommand{\bpsi}{\ol\psi}
53: \newcommand{\bzet}{\ol\zeta} \newcommand{\bchi}{\ol\chi}
54: \newcommand{\bet}{\ol\eta}
55:
56: \newcommand{\qu}{{\rm q}}
57:
58: \newcommand{\qb}{{\rm\bar q}}
59:
60: \newcommand{\qq}{\qu\qb\ }
61: \newcommand{\chisb}{{\raisebox{0.8mm}{\hbox{$\chi$}}${\textstyle
62: SB}$}}
63:
64: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}} \newcommand{\halfs}{{\scriptstyle
65: \frac{1}{2}}} \newcommand{\halft}{{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}}
66: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim} \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}
67: \newcommand{\ol}{\overline} \newcommand{\im}{{\,\rm Im \,}}
68: \newcommand{\re}{{\,\rm Re \,}}
69:
70:
71: \newcommand{\Lslash}[1]{ \parbox[b]{1em}{$#1$} \hspace{-0.8em}
72: \parbox[b]{0.8em}{
73: \raisebox{0.2ex}{$/$}}} \newcommand{\Slash}[1]{
74: \parbox[b]{0.6em}{$#1$} \hspace{-0.55em}
75: \parbox[b]{0.55em}{
76: \raisebox{-0.2ex}{$/$}}}
77:
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79:
80:
81: \title{\center{Retardation Effect for Collisional Energy Loss \\ of
82: Hard Partons Produced in a QGP}}
83:
84:
85: \author{St\'ephane Peign\'e\footnote{On leave of absence from LAPTH,
86: CNRS, UMR 5108, Universit\'e de Savoie, B.P. 110, F-74941
87: Annecy-le-Vieux Cedex, France}, Pol-Bernard Gossiaux, Thierry
88: Gousset\\ SUBATECH, UMR 6457, Universit\'e de Nantes \\ Ecole des
89: Mines de Nantes, IN2P3/CNRS. \\ 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44307 Nantes
90: cedex 3, France \\ E-mail: \email{lastname@subatech.in2p3.fr}}
91:
92: \preprint{SUBATECH 2005/004 \\ LAPTH-1110/05}
93:
94: \abstract{We study the collisional energy loss suffered by an
95: energetic parton travelling the distance $L$ in a high temperature
96: quark-gluon plasma and {\it initially produced in the medium}. We
97: find that the medium-induced collisional loss $-\Delta E(L)$ is
98: strongly suppressed compared to previous estimates which assumed the
99: collisional energy loss rate $-dE/dx$ to be constant.
100: The large $L$ linear asymptotic behaviour of $-\Delta E(L)$ sets in only after a
101: quite large retardation time. The suppression of $-\Delta E(L)$ is
102: partly due to the fact that gluon bremsstrahlung arising from the
103: initial acceleration of the energetic parton is reduced in the medium
104: compared to vacuum. The latter radiation spectrum is sensitive to the
105: plasmon modes of the quark-gluon plasma and has a rich angular
106: structure.}
107:
108: \keywords{Quark Gluon Plasma, Collisional Energy Loss, Induced
109: Radiation}
110:
111: \begin{document}
112:
113: \section{Introduction}
114:
115: Jet quenching has long ago been suggested as a possible signal for the
116: quark-gluon plasma (QGP) \cite{bj}, and this has triggered a
117: considerable activity both on the experimental and theoretical sides.
118: The theoretical determination of parton energy loss has been the
119: subject of many studies, and numerous observables sensitive to jet
120: quenching are currently analyzed in the Relativistic Heavy Ion
121: Collider (RHIC) experiments.
122:
123: In a (static) thermal or dense medium of very large size $L$, a parton
124: of high (but finite) energy $E$ undergoes a radiative energy loss
125: $\Delta E_{rad}$ which increases as a power of the energy ($\Delta
126: E_{rad} \propto L E$ in the Bethe-Heitler limit and $\Delta E_{rad}
127: \propto L \sqrt{E}$ when the non-abelian LPM effect is at work
128: \cite{bdmps94}), whereas its collisional energy loss $\Delta E_{coll}$
129: behaves at most lo\-ga\-ri\-thmi\-cally\footnote{The $\log{E}$ factor
130: arises when $\Delta E_{coll}$ is calculated in the fixed coupling
131: approximation \cite{bj,TG,BT}, but is expected to be absent in the
132: case of a running coupling \cite{peshierdok}. This point is briefly
133: discussed in section 3.2.}, $\Delta E_{coll} \propto L \log{E}$
134: \cite{bj,TG,BT}. For a large size medium we thus expect $\Delta
135: E_{rad}$ to be the dominant source of energy loss for energetic
136: partons.
137:
138: In the opposite limit, namely for a parton of asymptotic energy $E\to
139: \infty$ crossing a medium of {\it finite} size $L < L_{cr}$ (but still
140: thick enough, $L/\lambda \gg 1$, where $\lambda$ is the parton mean
141: free path), $\Delta E_{rad}$ becomes independent of $E$, $\Delta
142: E_{rad} \propto E^0 L^2$ \cite{bdmps96,Zakharov}. The finite size
143: limit $L < L_{cr}$ should be relevant in practice since a simple
144: numerical estimate within the model of Ref.~\cite{bdmps96} gives
145: $L_{cr} = \sqrt{\lambda E /m_D^2} \simeq 7 \ {\rm fm}$ for $E = 10 \
146: {\rm GeV}$, where $m_D^{-1}$ is the Debye screening length in the
147: medium. It was also shown \cite{GLV} that finite opacity ($L/\lambda
148: \gsim 1$) and finite $E$ effects lead to a substantial suppression
149: (together with some energy dependence) of $\Delta E_{rad}$, when
150: compared to the asymptotic $E$-independent result. We can thus expect
151: $\Delta E_{coll}$ to compete with $\Delta E_{rad}$ in the case of a
152: finite size medium. Indeed, recent studies
153: \cite{MustafaThoma,dars,Mustafa} suggest that for `jets' of energy on
154: the order of $10 \,\rm{GeV}$ such as those measured in $AA$ collisions
155: at RHIC, the collisional energy loss might be comparable to the
156: radiative one, both for light \cite{dars} and heavy \cite{Mustafa}
157: partons.
158:
159: Thus an accurate determination of $\Delta E_{coll}$ for large $E$ and
160: finite $L$ is needed in order to interpret the suppression of
161: inclusive large $p_T$ hadron production at moderate energies observed
162: at RHIC in $AA$ collisions \cite{phenix,star}. In previous studies of
163: parton collisional energy loss in a QGP, the loss\footnote{From now on
164: all energy losses will be implicitly collisional, $-\Delta E \equiv
165: -\Delta E_{coll}$.} $-\Delta E(L)$ suffered by the hard parton
166: travelling the distance $L$ in the plasma was assumed to be given by
167: $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$ times $L$, with $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$ the rate of
168: energy loss per unit distance occurring in a {\it stationary} regime,
169: \ie, long after the energetic parton has been produced. This is
170: certainly a valid approximation when the medium size becomes very
171: large, and formulas for $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$ of a heavy quark of mass
172: $M \gg T$ travelling in a QGP of high temperature $T$ have been
173: obtained \cite{TG,BT}.
174:
175: In the present paper we argue that such an approximation to $-\Delta
176: E(L)$ is incorrect in the case of an energetic parton {\it produced at
177: an initial time $t = 0$} inside a thermal or dense medium of moderate
178: size $L$, which is the relevant situation when discussing jet or
179: hadron quenching at large $p_T$. As in previous studies of collisional
180: energy loss \cite{TG,BT}, we work in the theoretical high temperature
181: small coupling limit $g \ll 1$ for the QGP (and in the hard thermal
182: loop - HTL - resummation framework \cite{pisarski,BI}), and assume a
183: fixed coupling $\alpha_s$. We also consider a static (non-expanding)
184: QGP in thermal equilibrium.
185: As argued in section 3.2, we expect the retardation of the stationary
186: regime found in this paper to be qualitatively unchanged in the case
187: of a running coupling. However, a rigorous treatment taking into
188: account the running of $\alpha_s$ would be needed in order to obtain a
189: reliable quantitative estimate of $-\Delta E(L)$. Recalling moreover
190: that $g(m_D) \gsim 1$ in realistic phenomenological applications, we
191: stress that our results should be considered on a {\it qualitative}
192: level only.
193:
194: For a fast parton prepared at $t=-\infty$ and travelling in an
195: infinite medium, the collisional energy loss can be understood as
196: follows. The proper (chromo-)electric field of the parton polarizes
197: the medium, which creates an effective (medium-induced) electric field
198: around the parton, responsible for its slowing down. If the energetic
199: parton is produced at $t = 0$ (via some process involving a hard scale
200: $\sim p_T$), we may expect the rate of collisional energy loss
201: $-dE/dx$ to be reduced during the time the parton proper field is
202: created, before reaching the asymptotic value $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$. A
203: result suggestive of such a {\it retardation effect} is qualitatively
204: what we find in the following. A fast parton produced initially in the
205: medium needs to travel some distance before losing energy at the
206: highest rate. Our main conclusion is that {\it collisional} losses
207: used in the analysis of nuclear modification factors $R_{AA}$ at large
208: $p_T$ (for jet or hadron production) have been systematically
209: overestimated due to the neglect of this effect.
210:
211: In section 2 we present our model for the induced collisional energy
212: loss $-\Delta E(L)$ of a parton produced initially in a QGP. In
213: section 3 we give our numerical results for the $L$-dependence of
214: $-\Delta E(L)$, which display a strong attenuation of the energy loss
215: when compared to previous estimates, as well as a large
216: retardation time $t_{\rm ret}$ of the stationary regime.
217: We give a simple interpretation of the largeness of $t_{\rm ret}$.
218: We also discuss the domain of validity of our analysis, and
219: how the running of $\alpha_s$ could affect
220: $-\Delta E(L)$. Finally, in section 4, we show that within our (standard)
221: definition of {\it collisional} energy loss, $-\Delta E(L)$ gets a
222: contribution from induced gluon {\it radiation} which arises from the
223: sudden acceleration of the parton at $t=0$. The in-medium
224: bremsstrahlung spectrum due to charge acceleration is indeed not the
225: same as in vacuum since it is sensitive to the longitudinal and
226: transverse plasmon modes of the QGP. The angular spectrum presents a
227: diffraction pattern depending on the plasma size $L$. The {\it
228: induced} radiated energy is negative, and thus contributes (but only partly) to
229: the suppression of $-\Delta E(L)$ and to the retardation effect
230: discussed in section 3. We conclude in section 5.
231:
232: \section{Model for collisional energy loss of a parton produced at
233: $t=0$ in a QGP}
234:
235: We derive in this section the master equation \eq{mastereq} for the
236: collisional energy loss $-\Delta E(L)$ of an energetic (and massive)
237: parton of velocity $v$, initially produced in a quark-gluon plasma,
238: and travelling the distance $L$ in the medium. We first present our
239: model for the classical partonic current density $j^{\mu
240: \,a}=(\rho^a,\vec{j}^a)$, and then give, in the abelian approximation,
241: the expression of the (chromo-)electric field induced by this current
242: density.
243:
244: \subsection{Model for partonic current}
245: \label{sec2.1}
246:
247: In previous studies of parton collisional energy loss in a QGP
248: \cite{TG,BT}, the classical color charge has been assumed to be
249: produced at $t=-\infty$. In this case the current 4-vector in
250: coordinate space reads: \beq
251: \label{jinf}
252: j^{\mu\,a}_{\infty}(t,\vec{x}) = q^a V^{\mu} \delta^3(\vec{x} -
253: \vec{v}\,t) \ , \eeq where $V^{\mu}$ denotes the parton 4-velocity,
254: $V= (1,\vec{v})$. The color index $a$ is carried by the parton color
255: charge $q^a$ defined by $q^a q^a = C_R \alpha_s$, where $C_R$ is the
256: Casimir invariant of the color representation $R$ the parton belongs
257: to ($C_R=C_F=4/3$ for a quark and $C_R=C_A=3$ for a gluon). In
258: 4-momentum space $K=(\omega, \vec{k})$ the current \eq{jinf} becomes
259: \beq
260: \label{jinfmom}
261: j^{\mu\,a}_{\infty}(K) = 2\pi q^a V^{\mu} \delta(K.V) \ ,
262: \eeq
263: which trivially satisfies current conservation, $K.j_{\infty}=0$.
264:
265: When considering the quenching of large $p_T$ jets or hadrons in
266: relativistic heavy ion collisions, the large $p_T$ parent parton is
267: rather created at $t=0$ in the underlying hard partonic subprocess.
268: Its associated classical `current' is thus, instead of \eq{jinf},
269: \beq
270: \label{j}
271: j_0^{\mu\,a}(t,\vec{x}) = q^a V^{\mu} \delta^3(\vec{x} - \vec{v}\,t)
272: \, \theta(t) \ ,
273: \eeq
274: giving in momentum space: \beq
275: \label{jmom}
276: j_0^{\mu\,a}(K) = i q^a \frac{V^{\mu}}{K.V + i\eta} = q^a V^{\mu}
277: \left[i {\rm P}\left(\frac{1}{K.V}\right) + \pi \delta(K.V) \right] \
278: . \eeq However, the `current' \eq{jmom} is not conserved, $K.j_0 \neq
279: 0$. Color charge conservation requires the hard parton to be produced
280: in conjunction with at least another parton in the partonic
281: subprocess. As a generic {\it conserved} partonic current, we will
282: consider the simple case of a (color singlet) dipole produced at
283: $t=0$, consisting of two partons (with the same color charge $q^a$) of
284: 4-velocities $V_1 = (1, \vec{v}_1)$ and $V_2 = (1, \vec{v}_2)$: \beq
285: \label{genericcurrent}
286: j^{\mu\,a} = (\rho^a, \vec{j}^a) = i q^a \,
287: \left(\frac{V_1^{\mu}}{K.V_1+i\eta} - \frac{V_2^{\mu}}{K.V_2+i\eta}
288: \right) \ . \eeq In the following we will consider the second parton
289: to be a static heavy quark, \ie\ $\vec{v}_2= \vec{0}$, in which case
290: the space component of the current is simply given by the first term
291: of \eq{genericcurrent}. The choice \eq{genericcurrent} instead of
292: \eq{jmom} is however crucial. Current conservation indeed constrains
293: the form of the electric field \eq{linappr}, and allows to treat
294: unambiguously the potential singularity at $\omega=0$ (see
295: \eq{linappr} and \eq{efield}), as we briefly explain below. We expect
296: the main results of our study not to depend on the simplifying
297: assumption $\vec{v}_2= \vec{0}$.
298:
299: \subsection{Induced electric field}
300: \label{sec2.2}
301:
302: Following \cite{TG} (see also \cite{Ichimaru}), in the abelian
303: approximation and within linear response theory the Maxwell equations
304: can be solved in 4-momentum space $K=(\omega, \vec{k})$, yielding the
305: total (chromo-)electric field $\vec{E}^a$ in terms of the classical
306: vector current density $\vec{j}^a$: \beq
307: \label{linappr}
308: \epsilon_L \vec{E}_L^a + (\epsilon_T - k^2/\omega^2) \vec{E}_T^a =
309: \frac{4\pi}{i\omega} (\vec{j}_L^a + \vec{j}_T^a) \ . \eeq The
310: longitudinal and transverse components are given by $\vec{j}_{L} =
311: (\vec{j}.\vec{k}/k^2)\vec{k}$ (we denote $k=|\vec{k}|$) and
312: $\vec{j}_{T} = \vec{j}-\vec{j}_{L}$. In the linear response
313: approximation the longitudinal and transverse dielectric functions of
314: the plasma $\epsilon_L$ and $\epsilon_T$ are not affected by the
315: external current. We consider a high temperature QGP, for which
316: $\epsilon_{L,T}$ have been obtained in \cite{klimov,weldon} and later
317: rederived in the gauge-invariant HTL resummation framework
318: \cite{pisarski,BI}.
319:
320: In the following we will have to deal with the $1/\omega$ potential
321: singularity appearing in \eq{linappr}, and specifically affecting the
322: longitudinal part of the electric field. The latter actually arises
323: from Coulomb's law $k \, \epsilon_L E_L \propto \rho$, where $\rho$ is
324: the charge density, by using the equation for current conservation
325: $\rho = k j_L / \omega$. More precisely, our conserved current
326: \eq{genericcurrent} satisfies $\rho = k j_L/(\omega +i\eta)$, for any
327: $\vec{v}_1$ and $\vec{v}_2$ (including $\vec{v}_2=\vec{0}$). This
328: shows that the potential $1/\omega$ singularity appearing in
329: \eq{linappr} should be regularized with the {\it retarded}
330: prescription, $\omega \rightarrow \omega +i\eta$.
331:
332: We obtain from \eq{linappr} the {\it medium-induced} electric field
333: $\vec{\cal{E}}^a$, \beq
334: \label{efield}
335: \vec{\cal{E}}^a(t, \vec{x}) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
336: \frac{d\omega}{\omega} \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{4\pi^3 i} \, e^{-i
337: (\omega t - \vec{k}.\vec{x})} \left[ \frac{\vec{j}_{L}^a}{\epsilon_L}
338: + \frac{\vec{j}_{T}^a}{\epsilon_T - k^2/\omega^2} \right]_{\rm ind} \
339: , \eeq where $\vec{j}^a$ is given by \eq{genericcurrent} (with
340: $\vec{v}_2= \vec{0}$), or equivalently by \eq{jmom} (with
341: $\vec{v}=\vec{v}_1$), and the $1/\omega$ singularity should be treated
342: with the retarded prescription. In \eq{efield} the subscript denotes
343: the implicit subtraction of the vacuum contribution (corresponding to
344: $\epsilon_L=\epsilon_T=1$). Since the dielectric functions (and the
345: external current) are real quantities in coordinate space, implying in
346: momentum space $\epsilon_{L,T}(-K)= \epsilon_{L,T}(K)^*$ (and a
347: similar relation for the current), the expression \eq{efield} is
348: easily checked to be also real.
349:
350: \subsection{Master equation for parton collisional energy loss}
351: \label{sec2.3}
352:
353: During its travel in the plasma between $t=0$ and $t=L/v$, the induced
354: energy gain $\Delta E$ of the parton of {\it constant} velocity
355: $\vec{v}_1 = \vec{v}$ equals the work of the electric force on its
356: trajectory, namely $\Delta E = \vec{v} \cdot \int_0^{L/v} dt\, q^a
357: \vec{\cal{E}}^a(t, \vec{x}= \vec{v} t)$ or: \beq
358: \label{eloss}
359: \Delta E(L) = q^a \vec{v} \cdot \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
360: \frac{d\omega}{\omega} \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{4\pi^3 i} \int_0^{L/v}
361: dt \, e^{-i K.V\, t} \left[ \frac{\vec{j}_{L}^a}{\epsilon_L} +
362: \frac{\vec{j}_{T}^a}{\epsilon_T - k^2/\omega^2} \right]_{\rm ind} \ .
363: \eeq We stress that the latter expression is valid in the abelian
364: approximation for the hard parton dynamics and within linear response
365: theory, implying that $|\Delta E(L)|$ should be small compared to the
366: initial parton energy $E$, which is also consistent with the
367: assumption of a constant velocity.
368:
369: If as in \cite{TG} the current \eq{jinfmom} is used in \eq{eloss}, the
370: exponential factor equals unity, and the collisional energy loss on
371: the distance $L$ is uniquely determined by its rate per unit distance
372: $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}= -\Delta E/L$. Inserting instead
373: \eq{genericcurrent} in \eq{eloss}, and performing the time integral,
374: we obtain the collisional energy loss $-\Delta E(L)$ of a hard parton
375: produced at $t=0$ and travelling the distance $L$ in the medium, \beq
376: \label{mastereq}
377: \frac{-\Delta E(L)}{C_R \alpha_s} = i \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
378: \frac{d\omega}{\omega} \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{4\pi^3} \, \left[
379: \frac{\vec{v}_{L}^{\,2}}{\epsilon_L}+
380: \frac{\vec{v}_{T}^{\,2}}{\epsilon_T - k^2/\omega^2} \right]_{\rm ind}
381: \left\{ \frac{1-e^{-i K.V \, L/v}}{K.V(K.V+i\eta)} \right\} \ . \eeq
382: We note that the factor between the curly brackets in \eq{mastereq}
383: can be rewritten as \beq
384: \label{bracket}
385: \left\{ \pi \, \delta(K.V) L/v + 2\,\frac{\sin^2(K.V
386: \,L/(2v))}{(K.V)^2} + i\,\frac{\sin(K.V \,L/v)}{K.V} {\rm
387: P}\left(\frac{1}{K.V}\right) \right\} \ \ . \eeq Using the following
388: identities, \beq
389: \label{delta}
390: \frac{\sin(u L)}{u} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L \to \infty} \pi
391: \delta(u) \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ \frac{\sin^2(u L)}{L\,u^2}
392: \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L \to \infty} \pi \delta(u) \ , \eeq we find
393: that in the $L \to \infty$ limit, the expression \eq{bracket} is
394: equivalent to $2\pi \, \delta(K.V) L/v$, and \eq{mastereq} thus
395: reproduces the result for $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$ obtained in
396: Ref.~\cite{TG}. In the small $L$ limit, however, the second term of
397: \eq{bracket} is subleading and \eq{bracket} reduces to $(i {\rm
398: P}(1/K.V) +\pi \delta(K.V))\,L/v$ as can be seen also directly from
399: \eq{mastereq}, thus leading to a modification of collisional energy
400: loss at finite $L$.
401:
402: \section{The retardation effect}
403:
404: In this section we first express the energy loss \eq{mastereq} in
405: terms of the discontinuity (on the real axis) of the longitudinal and
406: transverse thermal gluon propagators. We then present and discuss our
407: numerical results, which show that the asymptotic large $L$ behaviour
408: of $-\Delta E(L)$ sets in only after some retardation time.
409:
410: \subsection{Expression of $-\Delta E(L)$ in terms of thermal gluon
411: spectral densities}
412: \label{sec3.1}
413:
414: The dielectric functions can be expressed in terms of the longitudinal
415: and transverse thermal gluon self-energies\footnote{In the following,
416: we will use the sign conventions and notations of Ref.~\cite{BI}.},
417: \beq
418: \label{dielectric}
419: \epsilon_L = 1+\Pi_L(x)/k^2 \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ \epsilon_T =
420: 1-\Pi_T(x)/\omega^2 \ , \eeq where $x=\omega/k$ and $\Pi_{L,T}$ have
421: been obtained in the HTL approximation \cite{pisarski,BI}, \beqa
422: \Pi_L(x) = m_D^2 \left[ 1 - \frac{x}{2} \log{\left( \frac{x+1}{x-1}
423: \right)} \right] \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \Pi_T(x) = \halft m_D^2 \, x^2 \left[1
424: - \frac{x^2-1}{2x} \log{\left( \frac{x+1}{x-1} \right)} \right] \
425: . \nn \\
426: \label{pilt}
427: \eeqa The Debye mass denoted as $m_D$ is given by $m_D^2 = 4\pi
428: \alpha_s T^2 (1+n_f/6)$ (with $n_f=2$ the number of thermally
429: equilibrated flavours). We also use the longitudinal and transverse
430: thermal gluon propagators \beq
431: \label{prop}
432: \Delta_L(\omega=kx, k) = \frac{-1}{k^2+\Pi_L(x)} \ \ \ \ ;\ \ \ \
433: \Delta_T(\omega=k x, k) = \frac{-1}{\omega^2-k^2-\Pi_T(x)} \ \ . \eeq
434: Using \eq{dielectric} and \eq{prop} the expression \eq{mastereq}
435: becomes (with $\vec{v}_{L}^{\,2} = v^2 \cos^2{\theta}$,
436: $\vec{v}_{T}^{\,2} = v^2 \sin^2{\theta}$): \beqa
437: \label{r1}
438: \frac{-\Delta E(L)}{C_R \alpha_s} &=& - i v^2 \int
439: \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{4\pi^3} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
440: \frac{d\omega}{\omega} \, \left[ k^2 \cos^2{\theta} \,
441: \Delta_L(\omega, k)+ \omega^2 \sin^2{\theta} \, \Delta_T(\omega, k)
442: \right]_{\rm ind} \nn \\ && \hskip 3cm \times \left\{ \frac{1-e^{-i
443: (\omega-kv\cos{\theta}) \,
444: L/v}}{(\omega-kv\cos{\theta})(\omega-kv\cos{\theta}+i\eta)} \right\} \
445: . \eeqa
446:
447: The longitudinal and transverse thermal gluon propagators have
448: singularities on the real $\omega$-axis, namely branch cuts
449: (corresponding to Landau damping) in the spacelike $|x|<1$ region, and
450: poles corresponding to collective excitations of the plasma (plasmons)
451: in the timelike $|x|>1$ region. Those singularities must be treated
452: using the retarded prescription $\omega \to \omega +i\eta$ arising in
453: the analytical continuation from imaginary to real frequencies in
454: finite temperature field theory. As we explained in section
455: \ref{sec2.2}, the potential $1/\omega$ singularity at $\omega \to 0$
456: must be also regularized with the retarded prescription. Thus all
457: singularities on the real axis appearing in \eq{r1} are implicitly
458: written with the same, retarded prescription.
459:
460: It is convenient to perform the $\omega$-integral in \eq{r1} using
461: Cauchy's theorem, by closing the integration contour in the lower
462: (complex $\omega$) half-plane, as required by the presence of the
463: exponential factor in the integrand (since $L >0$). Thus the integral
464: over the real axis is replaced by the integral over the
465: (clockwise-going) contours around the singularities which lie just
466: below the real axis, namely the poles at $\omega = -i\eta$ and $\omega
467: = kv\cos{\theta}-i\eta$, and the plasmon poles and cuts of the
468: propagators $\Delta_{L,T}$. We obtain from \eq{r1}: \beqa
469: \label{r2}
470: \frac{-\Delta E(L)}{C_R \alpha_s} &=& - i v^2 \int
471: \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{4\pi^3} \left\{
472: (-2i\pi) \frac{1}{v^2} (1-e^{ikL\cos{\theta}}) \re{\Delta_L(0, k)}
473: \phantom{{\rm P}\left( \frac{1}{\omega} \right)} \right. \nn \\
474: && + (-2i\pi) \frac{iL k \cos{\theta}}{v^2}
475: \left[\re{\Delta_L(kv\cos{\theta}, k)}
476: +v^2 \sin^2{\theta} \re{\Delta_T(kv\cos{\theta}, k)} \right] \nn \\
477: && + 2 i \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega \,
478: \left[ k^2 \cos^2{\theta} \im{\Delta_L(\omega, k)}+ \omega^2
479: \sin^2{\theta} \im{\Delta_T(\omega, k)} \right] \nn \\
480: && \hskip 2cm \times \left. {\rm P}\left( \frac{1}{\omega} \right)
481: {\rm P}\left( \frac{1}{\omega- kv\cos{\theta}} \right)
482: \frac{1-e^{-i (\omega-kv\cos{\theta}) \, L/v}}{\omega-kv\cos{\theta}}
483: \right\}_{\rm ind} \ .
484: \eeqa
485: Due to the fact that $\re{\Delta_{L,T}(\omega, k)}$ is an even
486: function of $\omega$, the second line of the latter equation vanishes
487: after angular integration. Recalling \cite{BI} that the spectral
488: densities (with $s=L$ or $T$) \beq
489: \label{rholt}
490: \rho_{s}(\omega, k) \equiv 2 \im{\Delta_{s}(\omega + i\eta, k)} = 2\pi
491: {\, \rm sgn}(\omega) \,z_s(k) \delta(\omega^2 -\omega_s^2(k)) +
492: \beta_{s}(\omega, k) \theta(k^2-\omega^2) \eeq vanish at $\omega =0$,
493: we can rewrite \eq{r2} in the form: \beqa
494: \label{mastereq2}
495: \frac{-\Delta E(L)}{C_R \alpha_s} = \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{2\pi^2}
496: \left\{ \frac{1-\cos{(kL\cos{\theta})}}{k^2+m_D^2} + v^2
497: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi\omega} \, \left[ k^2
498: \cos^2{\theta} \, \rho_L+ \omega^2 \sin^2{\theta} \, \rho_T \right]
499: \right. && \nn \\ \hskip 7cm \times \left. 2
500: \frac{\sin^2{\left((\omega-kv\cos{\theta})L/(2v)
501: \right)}}{(\omega-kv\cos{\theta})^2}\right\}_{\rm ind} \ . \ \ \ \ &&
502: \eeqa
503:
504: The expression \eq{mastereq2} for the collisional energy loss is
505: actually ultraviolet divergent.
506: The logarithmic
507: UV divergence $\sim \int dk/k$ appears in the (leading) asymptotic $L \to \infty$ behaviour of \eq{mastereq2},
508: \beqa
509: \label{deltainf}
510: \frac{-\Delta E_{\infty}(L)}{C_R \alpha_s} = v^2 \int
511: \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{2\pi^2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
512: \frac{d\omega}{2\pi\omega} \, \left[ k^2 \cos^2{\theta} \, \rho_L+
513: \omega^2 \sin^2{\theta} \, \rho_T \right]_{\rm ind} \, \left[
514: \frac{\pi L}{v} \delta(\omega-kv\cos{\theta}) \right] \ . \nn \\
515: \eeqa
516: In Ref.~\cite{BT} it is stressed that the macroscopic description is meaningful
517: only for distant collisions, and a framework which properly includes close collisions is formulated.
518: Within such an approach the energy loss is UV convergent, but receives a contribution from
519: the `hard' domain $k \gg T$. In QCD the running of $\alpha_s$
520: improves the UV convergence, and the stationary rate of energy loss
521: $(-dE/dx)_{\infty} = -\Delta E_{\infty}(L)/L$ is expected to be actually dominated
522: by the `soft' $k \sim m_D$ region \cite{peshierdok}.
523: We will come back to this point in the end of section 3.2.
524: In the absence of a rigorous treatment with running coupling, we choose to focus on the {\it
525: difference} between $-\Delta E(L)$ and the standard stationary law \eq{deltainf},
526: \beqa
527: \label{ddef}
528: d(L) &=& -\Delta E(L) + \Delta E_{\infty}(L) \\
529: \label{d}
530: \frac{d(L)}{C_R \alpha_s} &=& \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{2\pi^2} \left\{
531: \frac{1-\cos{(kL\cos{\theta})}}{k^2+m_D^2} + v^2
532: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi\omega} \, \left[ k^2
533: \cos^2{\theta} \, \rho_L+ \omega^2 \sin^2{\theta} \, \rho_T \right]
534: \right. \nn \\ && \hskip 2cm \times \left. \left[ 2
535: \frac{\sin^2{\left((\omega-kv\cos{\theta})L/(2v)
536: \right)}}{(\omega-kv\cos{\theta})^2} -\frac{\pi L}{v}
537: \delta(\omega-kv\cos{\theta}) \right] \right\}_{\rm ind} \ , \nn \\
538: \eeqa
539: which turns out to be UV convergent (see Appendix A).
540: As discussed in the next section, we also expect the main feature of the function
541: $d(L)$ (which we evaluate with fixed coupling), namely its limiting value when $L \to \infty$,
542: to be unaffected by the running of $\alpha_s$.
543:
544: \subsection{Numerical results and discussion}
545: \label{sec3.2}
546:
547: In this section we first discuss the main features of $d(L)$, in particular
548: its large $L$ limit, and the domain of validity of our calculation.
549: (The mathematical properties of $d(L)$ are studied in the Appendices.)
550: Consequences on the phenomenology of the collisional loss $-\Delta E(L)$ are then
551: presented.
552:
553: The large $L$ limit of $d(L)$,
554: \begin{equation}
555: d_\infty \equiv \mathop{\rm lim}_{L \to
556: \infty} d(L) = \mathop{\rm lim}_{L \to \infty} \left[ - \Delta E(L) +
557: \Delta E_{\infty}(L) \right] \ \ ,
558: \end{equation}
559: is calculated exactly in Appendix B (see Eqs.~\eq{al}, \eq{at} and \eq{shiftresult})
560: and can be accurately approximated by
561: \begin{equation}
562: d_\infty\approx -C_R\alpha_s m_D \Bigl(1+\sqrt{2}(\gamma-1)\Bigr) \ \ .
563: \end{equation}
564: Our central result is that $d_\infty$ scales as $\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-v^2}$ when
565: $v=p/E \to 1$. The largeness (and negative sign) of $d_\infty$ for large quark energies
566: will be the main reason for the important delay of the stationary regime.
567: The $L$-dependence of $d(L)$ is presented in Fig.~\ref{dplot} for a
568: fast charm quark. The function $d(L)$ is found to be negative for all $L$,
569: and Fig.~\ref{dplot}b shows the increase (in magnitude) of $d_\infty$
570: with the quark energy, as found analytically.
571:
572: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
573: \begin{figure}[t]
574: \begin{center}
575: \epsfig{figure=dofLp10GeV.eps,angle=0,width=7cm}
576: \epsfig{figure=dofLscaling.eps,angle=0,width=7cm}
577: \end{center}
578: \caption[*]{The function $d(L)$ defined by \eq{ddef} and \eq{d} for a
579: charm quark ($M=1.5\,{\rm GeV}$) produced in a QGP of temperature
580: $T=0.25\,{\rm GeV}$, as a function of the distance $L$ travelled in
581: the plasma. We use $\alpha_s = 0.2$ and $n_f=2$ in the expression of
582: the Debye mass $m_D^2= 4\pi\alpha_s T^2(1+n_f/6)$, giving $m_D \simeq
583: 0.46\,{\rm GeV}$. (a) $d(L)$ for a quark momentum $p=10\,{\rm GeV}$
584: (full line). The contribution from initial bremsstrahlung (see section
585: 4 and Appendix B) to $d(L)$ is represented by the dashed line. (b)
586: Dependence of $d(L)$ on the charm quark momentum $p$. The thin
587: straight lines give the values of $d_\infty$ for the corresponding
588: values of $p$.}
589: \label{dplot}
590: \end{figure}
591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
592:
593: The observed values of $d_\infty$ can be translated to an estimate
594: of the time scale characteristic of the transitory regime by defining the \emph{retardation time}
595: \begin{equation}\label{tret}
596: t_\mathrm{ret} = d_\infty/(dE/dx)_{\infty}\ \ .
597: \end{equation}
598: For a quark with $p=10$~GeV, $-d_\infty\sim 1$~GeV and
599: $-(dE/dx)_{\infty}\sim 0.1-0.2$~GeV$/$fm yields $t_\mathrm{ret}\sim
600: 5-10$~fm. This number should be considered as a rough estimate, due to the numerous
601: approximations used in our theoretical model.
602: But we stress that the retardation
603: time may be of the order of several fm for $p=10$~GeV,
604: and that it scales with the quark energy for large energies.
605:
606: The scaling in $\gamma$ of $d_\infty$ (when $\gamma \to \infty$)
607: results in a similar scaling of the retardation time, $t_\mathrm{ret}
608: \sim \gamma /m_D$, and this has the following simple interpretation.
609: The stationary regime for energy loss sets in when the regions of the
610: plasma at a transverse distance $\sim 1/m_D$, polarized by the parton
611: current, start to retroact on the parton. When the parton velocity $v$
612: is small, this takes a time $t_\mathrm{ret} \sim 1/m_D$. When $v \to
613: 1$, the latter scenario can occur only if the parton is not ahead of
614: the relevant polarized regions after the time $t_\mathrm{ret}$. At
615: initial time $t=0$, this requires the parton to polarize a domain
616: which is ahead of it, at an angle $\theta \sim \sqrt{1-v^2} =1/\gamma
617: \ll 1$ with respect to the direction of $\vec{v}$. The time $t_\mathrm{ret}$
618: corresponds to the time necessary to send a signal at a transverse
619: distance $\sim 1/m_D$ in the direction $\theta$, leading to
620: $t_\mathrm{ret}\sim 1/(m_D\theta)$ for $\theta\ll 1$, hence
621: $t_\mathrm{ret} \sim \gamma /m_D$ when $v \to 1$.
622:
623: We now discuss the domain of validity of our calculation.
624: As shown in Appendix B (see \eq{typk}), the typical values of $k$
625: contributing to $d_\infty$ are $k \sim \morder{\gamma m_D}$. Since
626: using the HTL gluon spectral densities in \eq{d} a priori requires $k
627: \ll T$ \cite{pisarski,BI}, our calculation of $d_\infty$ would seem to
628: be justified, in the perturbative framework $m_D \propto gT \ll T$,
629: only provided $\gamma$ is not too large, $\gamma \ll 1/g$. However,
630: as can be easily inferred from Appendix B, the dominant contribution
631: to $d_\infty$ arises from $|\omega^2- k^2| \sim m_D^2$ (with $\omega
632: \simeq k \sim \gamma m_D$), \ie\ from the region where $K=(\omega, k)$
633: is close to its mass-shell. It is known \cite{PST,bipp} that in this
634: region of low virtualities the HTL gluon propagator is a very good
635: approximation to the exact propagator even in the domain $k \gg T$.
636: Thus our calculation of $d_\infty$ might be justified for all values
637: of $\gamma$.
638:
639: Contrary to the position of the asymptote $d_\infty$, the small $L$
640: behaviour of $d(L)$ seen on Fig.~\ref{dplot} should not be physically
641: sound. The small $L$ behaviour of $d(L)$ can be obtained for instance from
642: \eq{shift2}, and is of the form $d(L \ll m_D^{-1}) \propto \alpha_s^2
643: T^2 L \log{(m_D L)}$, where the logarithm arises from an integral
644: $\sim \int_{m_D}^{1/L} dk/k$. Thus the small $L$ limit is sensitive
645: to large virtualities $|\omega^2- k^2| \sim k^2 \gg T^2$, where the
646: HTL approximation becomes invalid.
647:
648: In order to qualitatively illustrate how $d(L)$ delays the collisional
649: energy loss, we have to add the stationary
650: contribution $-\Delta E_{\infty}(L)$ given in \eq{deltainf}. In the
651: end of section 3.1 we pointed out that \eq{deltainf} is ill-defined as
652: it stands, because of a logarithmic UV divergence.
653: We mentioned that this divergence would be absent, either with a proper treatment of
654: close collisions with fixed $\alpha_s$ \cite{BT}, or due to the running of $\alpha_s$
655: \cite{peshierdok}, both approaches differing by the hardness of $k$ contributing
656: to $-(dE/dx)_{\infty}$. This stresses the need for a rigorous treatment with running $\alpha_s$.
657: In the absence of such a treatment, and since we need the stationary
658: loss $-\Delta E_{\infty}(L)$ only for a qualitative illustration of
659: the retardation effect, we will use the `standard' result derived in Ref.~\cite{BT}, which reads
660: to logarithmic accuracy (which is sufficient for our purpose):
661: \beq
662: \label{TGresult2}
663: \left( -\frac{dE}{dx} \right)_{\infty} \equiv \frac{-\Delta
664: E_{\infty}(L)}{L} = \frac{C_R \alpha_s m_D^2}{2} \, \left[ \frac{1}{v}
665: - \frac{1-v^2}{2v^2}\log{\left( \frac{1+v}{1-v}\right) } \right]
666: \log{\left(\frac{k_\mathrm{max}}{m_g} \right)}\ , \eeq
667: \beq
668: \label{UVcut}
669: {\rm where} \hskip .5cm k_\mathrm{max} \equiv {\rm Min \,}\left\{ \frac{ET}{M},
670: \sqrt{ET} \right\} \ , \eeq
671: and $m_g = m_D/\sqrt{3}$ is the gluon thermal mass.
672:
673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
674: \begin{figure}[t]
675: \begin{center}
676: \epsfig{figure=DeltaEp10GeV.eps,angle=0,width=7cm}
677: \epsfig{figure=DeltaEp20GeV.eps,angle=0,width=7cm}
678: \end{center}
679: \caption[*]{Collisional energy loss of a charm quark produced in a QGP
680: as a function of the distance $L$ travelled in the plasma, for $p =
681: 10\,{\rm GeV}$ and $p = 20\,{\rm GeV}$. The total result (full line)
682: is compared to the linear law ($-\Delta E_{\infty}$) corresponding to
683: \eq{TGresult2},
684: %% St:
685: %% \eq{TGresult1} with the replacement $k^* \to k_\mathrm{cut}$ (see text),
686: and which would arise in Ref.~\cite{BT} by evaluating the slope to
687: logarithmic accuracy. As in Fig.~\ref{dplot}a the dashed line singles
688: out the contribution to $-\Delta E(L)$ from initial bremsstrahlung
689: (see section 4).}
690: \label{lossplot}
691: \end{figure}
692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
693:
694: Our results for $-\Delta E(L)$ given by \eq{ddef}, \eq{d},
695: \eq{TGresult2} and \eq{UVcut} are shown in Fig.~\ref{lossplot},
696: illustrating the main qualitative feature, i.e. the important delay of
697: the stationary regime. The retardation time \eq{tret}, which
698: corresponds to the value of $L$ where the asymptote of $-\Delta E(L)$
699: cuts the horizontal axis, is close to the intersection of the curve
700: $-\Delta E(L)$ with this axis.
701:
702: As another consequence of the large negative values of $d(L)$, we
703: observe on Fig.~\ref{lossplot} that the {\it induced} energy loss
704: $-\Delta E(L)$ is negative at relatively small $L$, and thus
705: corresponds to an (induced) energy gain.
706:
707: Two effects may explain the latter observation, which goes beyond our
708: initial expectation of a delayed but however positive energy
709: loss. First, we recall that current conservation requires the
710: energetic parton to be produced with at least another parton. In the
711: simple case of a color singlet dipole we considered (see
712: \eq{genericcurrent}), we expect the dipole to separate more easily in
713: the medium than in vacuum, due to charge screening. Secondly, the
714: current created at $t=0$ produces radiation\footnote{The induced
715: radiated energy is part of $-\Delta E(L)$ as we defined it (see
716: section 4).}. As discussed in detail in section 4, in the medium the
717: radiated energy corresponds to the excitation of the QGP plasmon modes
718: and is reduced compared to vacuum (the {\it induced} radiated energy
719: is negative), as might have been expected for massive modes. However,
720: the retardation effect is only {\it partly} due to this difference
721: between in-medium and vacuum radiation, as seen in Fig.~\ref{dplot}a
722: and further discussed in section 4.
723:
724: We end this section by discussing which features of our calculation might be
725: affected by the running of $\alpha_s$.
726:
727: First, the standard result \cite{BT} for $-\Delta E_{\infty}(L)$ we have used arises from the
728: logarithmic interval $m_g \ll k \ll k_\mathrm{max}$ (see \eq{TGresult2} and \eq{UVcut}).
729: In QCD, with a {\it running} coupling evaluated at a scale on the order of the gluon
730: virtuality, we expect $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$ to be
731: $\propto\int dk \, \alpha_s(k)^2 /k \propto \int dk/(k\,\log^2{k})$,
732: showing that $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$ depends negligibly on $E$ when $E \to \infty$ \cite{peshierdok}.
733: (In this sense the $\log{k_{\rm max}} \propto \log{E}$ factor in \eq{TGresult2} is an artefact of the
734: fixed coupling approximation.)
735: Most importantly, $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$ is actually dominated by the soft
736: (infrared) region $k \sim m_D$ when $E \gg m_D$ \cite{peshierdok}, and we expect
737: the calculation of $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$ within a macroscopic description and with running
738: $\alpha_s$ to be self-consistent.
739:
740: Secondly, the running of $\alpha_s$ should affect the behaviour of $d(L)$
741: at small $L < 1/m_D$. We discussed previously that since the slope of $d(L)$ at small $L$
742: is of the form $\sim \alpha_s^2 \int_{m_D}^{1/L} dk/k$, it cannot be consistently derived
743: within a macroscopic description. This should not be the case with running coupling, since
744: we expect the slope to be rather
745: $\sim \int_{m_D}^{1/L} dk/(k \log^2k)$, which is dominated by $k \sim m_D$ and
746: independent of $L$ when $L\to 0$. Thus the sharp behaviour $d(L \to 0)
747: \propto L \log{L}$ obtained for fixed $\alpha_s$ should become $d(L
748: \to 0) \propto - \alpha_s(m_D) T^2 L$ in the case of running
749: $\alpha_s$. As a consequence, the energy loss $-\Delta E(L) = -\Delta
750: E_{\infty}(L) + d(L)$ shown in Fig.~\ref{lossplot} should be at most\footnote{In fact, for running
751: coupling the slope of $-\Delta E(L)$ is expected to vanish
752: when $L\to 0$. This can be seen by expanding the bracket in
753: \eq{mastereq} to order $L$. The UV convergence of the integral over $k$ being ensured
754: by the running of the coupling, the integral over
755: $\omega$ can be performed by closing the contour in the upper half-plane where there
756: is no singularity and identically vanishes.} $\sim \morder{L}$ at small $L$.
757: Thus, the relatively important induced energy gain at small $L$ seen in
758: Fig.~\ref{lossplot} might be strongly affected by the running of the coupling.
759: In contradistinction, we stress that the large $L$ limit $d_\infty$ of $d(L)$
760: should not be affected by the running of
761: $\alpha_s$, since $d_\infty$ depends on low virtualities $|\omega^2-k^2| \sim m_D^2$.
762:
763: \section{Induced radiation}
764:
765: As already mentioned, and as is well-known, the sudden acceleration of
766: the energetic parton at time $t=0$ comes along with bremsstrahlung
767: radiation. The quantity $-\Delta E(L)$ which we called induced {\it
768: collisional} energy loss actually contains this contribution. In this
769: section we single out this radiative component from $-\Delta E(L)$ and
770: emphasize that it plays only a finite part in the retardation effect
771: studied in section 3.
772:
773: In order to obtain the contribution $W(L)$ to $-\Delta E(L)$
774: originating from ra\-dia\-tion, we single out in \eq{r1} the
775: contribution of the plasmon poles. This is done by using the
776: expression of the gluon propagators close to their poles \cite{BI},
777: \ie\ at $\omega^2 \simeq \omega_s^2(k)$, \beqa
778: \label{gluonresidues}
779: \Delta_s(\omega,k) \simeq \frac{-z_s(k)}{(\omega +i\eta)^2
780: -\omega_s^2(k)} = -z_s(k) \left[ {\rm P}\left( \frac{1}{\omega^2
781: -\omega_s^2(k)}\right) - i\pi {\, \rm sgn}(\omega)\,\delta(\omega^2
782: -\omega_s^2(k))\right] \ , \nn \\ \eeqa and picking only the
783: $\delta$-term in the latter. From \eq{r1} we obtain the {\it total}
784: (\ie, we do not subtract the vacuum contribution from it) in-medium
785: radiation spectrum: \beqa \frac{d W(L)}{dk \, d\cos{\theta}} =
786: \frac{C_R \alpha_s}{\pi} \left\{ z_L(k) \frac{k^2}{\omega_L^2(k)}
787: \cos^2{\theta} \, \frac{\sin^2((\omega_L(k)-kv\cos{\theta})
788: \,L/(2v))}{(\cos{\theta}-\omega_L(k)/(kv))^2} \right. \hskip 1cm &&
789: \nn \\ + \left. z_T(k) \sin^2{\theta} \,
790: \frac{\sin^2((\omega_T(k)-kv\cos{\theta})
791: \,L/(2v))}{(\cos{\theta}-\omega_T(k)/(kv))^2} \right\} \hskip 1cm &&
792: \label{indrad} \\ \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to \infty} \frac{C_R
793: \alpha_s}{2\pi} \left\{ z_L(k) \frac{k^2}{\omega_L^2(k)} \,
794: \frac{\cos^2{\theta}}{(\cos{\theta}-\omega_L(k)/(kv))^2} + z_T(k) \,
795: \frac{\sin^2{\theta}}{(\cos{\theta}-\omega_T(k)/(kv))^2} \right\} &&
796: \label{indradb}
797: \eeqa where the functions $\omega_{L,T}(k)$ and $z_{L,T}(k)$ can be
798: found in Ref.~\cite{BI}.
799:
800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
801: \begin{figure}[t]
802: \begin{center}
803: \epsfig{figure=radspectrum1.eps,angle=0,width=7cm}
804: \epsfig{figure=radspectrum2.eps,angle=0,width=7cm}
805: \end{center}
806: \caption[*]{In-medium angular radiation spectrum (broad full line)
807: \eq{indrad} for $L= 5\,{\rm fm}$, $p=10\,{\rm GeV}$, $k=0.5 \,{\rm
808: GeV}$ (left) and $k=1 \,{\rm GeV}$ (right). The thin full line
809: represents the in-medium spectrum in the $L\to \infty$ limit
810: \eq{indradb}. The broad and thin dashed lines represent the same
811: spectra in the vacuum, given respectively by \eq{indradvac} and
812: \eq{indradvacb}.}
813: \label{radplot}
814: \end{figure}
815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
816:
817: The differential spectrum in the polar angle $\theta$ is represented
818: in Fig.~\ref{radplot} for $L= 5\,{\rm fm}$, $p=10\,{\rm GeV}$, and for
819: two values of $k$, $k=0.5 \,{\rm GeV}$ and $k=1 \,{\rm GeV}$. The
820: vacuum contribution is obtained by setting $z_L=0$, $z_T=1$,
821: $\omega_L(k) = \omega_T(k) = k$ in \eq{indrad}, yielding: \beqa
822: \left. \frac{d W(L)}{dk \, d\cos{\theta}} \right|_{vac} &&= \frac{C_R
823: \alpha_s}{\pi} \sin^2{\theta} \, \frac{\sin^2((k-kv\cos{\theta})
824: \,L/(2v))}{(\cos{\theta}-1/v)^2} \label{indradvac} \\
825: &&\mathop{\longrightarrow}_{L\to \infty} \frac{C_R \alpha_s}{2\pi}
826: \frac{v^2 \sin^2{\theta}}{(1-v \cos{\theta})^2} \ . \label{indradvacb}
827: \eeqa As expected, \eq{indradvacb} corresponds to the vacuum
828: bremsstrahlung spectrum of a single charge suddenly accelerated at
829: $t=0$. We remark that the latter spectrum contributes to the radiative
830: energy loss induced by parton multiple scattering
831: \cite{bdmps96,Zakharov,GLV}, as the zeroth order in the number of
832: parton rescatterings (`self-quenching' \cite{GLV}). As already
833: mentioned, the corresponding in-medium radiation spectrum \eq{indradb}
834: arises from medium polarization, and thus differs from the spectrum
835: induced by (at least one) rescattering calculated in
836: \cite{bdmps96,Zakharov,GLV}. The (large $L$) in-medium radiation
837: spectrum \eq{indradb} was previously obtained in Ref.~\cite{DG} within
838: a diagrammatic approach.
839:
840: In vacuum the spectrum \eq{indradvacb} is modified by parton cascade
841: and ha\-dro\-ni\-za\-tion, but the angular pattern \eq{indradvacb} in
842: principle affects the distribution of final state hadrons. In a QGP of
843: very large size, this distribution will rather be sensitive to the
844: large $L$ in-medium spectrum \eq{indradb}. Similarly, the modification
845: of the finite $L$ diffraction pattern when one goes from vacuum
846: (spectrum \eq{indradvac}) to the medium (spectrum \eq{indrad}) may be
847: of some relevance to discuss particle production induced by a fast
848: parton travelling a distance $L$ in the QGP. When $k$ is large, the
849: spectrum~\eq{indrad} approaches the vacuum spectrum \eq{indradvac}.
850: This can already be seen for $k=1 \,{\rm GeV}$ (Fig.~\ref{radplot}
851: right), although some attenuation is still visible at small $\theta$.
852: When $k$ decreases (Fig.~\ref{radplot} left), a strong distorsion
853: shows up as \eq{indrad} becomes sensitive to the plasmon modes of the
854: QGP.
855:
856: However the spectrum \eq{indrad} is not directly observable (not
857: speaking of parton cascade nor hadronization). In a realistic
858: situation, the parton propagates in the thermal medium for $0 \leq t
859: \leq L/v$, and in vacuum for $t \geq L/v$. Thus the full picture
860: should incorporate both stages. In addition, the fast parton produces
861: {\it transition radiation} when going through the discontinuity
862: between the thermal medium ($\epsilon_{L,T}\neq 1$) and the vacuum
863: ($\epsilon_{L,T}= 1$). This transition radiation must also be taken
864: into account in order to obtain the complete radiation spectrum. We
865: postpone to a future work the study of transition radiation in our
866: context, as well as its influence on the overall energy loss. In
867: particular, it is too early to possibly relate the angular spectrum
868: \eq{indrad} (see Fig.~\ref{radplot}) to the humpbacked azimuthal
869: distribution of particles produced back to the leading jet observed at
870: RHIC \cite{rhicaz}. However, the angular radiation spectrum
871: \eq{indrad} shown in Fig.~\ref{radplot} suggests that (at least some
872: component of) the particle yield in heavy ion collisions should
873: exhibit a diffraction pattern arising from the {\it finite length} of
874: the medium along which collisional energy loss occurs.
875:
876: Finally, we stress that in our calculation the radiated energy
877: (obtained by integrating \eq{indrad} over the radiated gluon energy
878: and emission angle) is smaller in the medium than in vacuum. This
879: feature could be foreseen by comparing the in-medium and vacuum
880: dif\-fe\-ren\-tial spectra in Fig.~\ref{radplot}. Thus the
881: contribution of induced radiation to what we defined as the induced
882: collisional energy loss $-\Delta E(L)$ is negative. Numerically, we
883: find that the bremsstrahlung contribution always accounts for less
884: than $50 \%$ of the difference $d(L)$ between $-\Delta E(L)$ and the
885: asymptotic result $-\Delta E_{\infty}$ (see Figs.~\ref{dplot}a and
886: \ref{lossplot}). In the end of Appendix B we show that the relative
887: contribution from bremsstrahlung to $d(L)$ reaches exactly $1/2$ when
888: $L\to \infty$ and in the ultrarelativistic limit $v \to 1$. This shows
889: that the retardation effect studied in section 3 cannot be solely
890: attributed to the radiative component of $-\Delta E(L)$.
891:
892: \section{Conclusion}
893:
894: We have studied the collisional energy loss $-\Delta E(L)$, in the
895: fixed coupling approximation, of an energetic parton travelling the
896: distance $L$ in a QGP, and initially produced (at $t=0$) in the
897: medium. Compared to previous estimates which assumed the parton to be
898: produced at $t=-\infty$, $-\Delta E(L)$ is strongly suppressed up to
899: $L \sim t_\mathrm{ret}$, where the retardation time $t_\mathrm{ret}$
900: scales with the parton momentum $p$ at large $p$. For $p=10 \,{\rm
901: GeV}$ we roughly estimated $t_\mathrm{ret} \sim 5-10\,{\rm fm}$.
902: We stress that this estimate is only indicative due to the various
903: approximations used in our theoretical model, in particular the small coupling
904: limit $g \ll 1$. Also, the running of $\alpha_s$ is expected to
905: affect both the small $L$ behaviour of $-\Delta E(L)$, and the
906: asymptotic stationary rate $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$, as discussed in the end of section
907: 3.2. A rigorous treatment with
908: running $\alpha_s$ would be needed to obtain a better quantitative estimate
909: of $t_\mathrm{ret}$.
910:
911: We believe our results could be relevant to jet quenching phenomenology,
912: since it has recently been argued
913: \cite{MustafaThoma,Mustafa} that collisional energy loss should be
914: reconsidered as an important source of energy loss. In addition to the
915: suppression of $-\Delta E(L)$, we find that the asymptotic linear
916: behaviour of $-\Delta E(L)$ is delayed to about $L \sim
917: t_\mathrm{ret}$. In particular, using a stationary energy loss rate
918: $-dE/dx$ makes sense only for quite large values of $L >
919: t_\mathrm{ret}$.
920:
921: The suppression and retardation of $-\Delta E(L)$ are encoded in the
922: difference $d(L) = -\Delta E(L) +\Delta E_{\infty}(L)$ between
923: $-\Delta E(L)$ and the `standard' stationary result $-\Delta
924: E_{\infty}(L) \propto L$. As we have shown, $d(L)$ is a well-defined
925: (UV convergent) quantity, and our main result - the {\it largeness} of the
926: retardation time - is independent of the uncertainties on $(-dE/dx)_{\infty}$
927: and on the precise shape of $-\Delta E(L)$ at small $L$.
928: The main reason for the large magnitude of the
929: retardation time is the scaling $d_\infty \propto - \gamma m_D$ when
930: $\gamma = E/M \to\infty$, where $d_\infty$ is the large $L$ limit of
931: $d(L)$. We showed that the (induced) bremsstrahlung arising from the
932: hard parton being suddenly accelerated at $t=0$, formally included in
933: $d(L)$, contributes only partly to $d_\infty$. Thus the retardation
934: effect cannot be solely attributed to initial radiation. The scaling
935: in $\gamma$ of $d_\infty$ (when $\gamma \to \infty$) results in a
936: similar scaling of the retardation time, $t_\mathrm{ret} \sim \gamma
937: /m_D$, and a physical interpretation of this fact is given in section 3.2.
938:
939: Finally, we mention that in order to explain the observed dependence
940: \cite{dEnterria} in azimuthal angle $\phi$ (with respect to the
941: reaction plane in a heavy ion $AA$ collision) of the nuclear
942: modification factor $R_{AA}$, taking into account the geometry of the
943: collision is not sufficient \cite{Pantuev}. A length scale $L \simeq
944: 2\,{\rm fm}$ has to be introduced, below which the parent parton of
945: the high $p_T$ jet or hadron is assumed to be insensitive to energy
946: loss. In Ref.~\cite{Pantuev} this parameter is interpreted as the
947: formation time of the plasma, but it is also stressed there that
948: $2\,{\rm fm}$ is quite large compared to the values $\sim 0.2\,{\rm
949: fm}$ usually taken for the plasma formation time. Our study suggests
950: that this parameter might instead hint to the possibility of a {\it
951: negative} loss $-\Delta E_{coll}(L)$ before the stationary regime,
952: partially compensating the radiative energy loss $-\Delta E_{rad}(L)$
953: induced by rescattering of the energetic parton.
954:
955: \vskip 1cm \acknowledgments We would like to warmly thank D.~Schiff,
956: Y.~L.~Dokshitzer and A.~Peshier for very instructive and helpful
957: discussions. We are also grateful to J.~Aichelin for stimulating
958: exchanges during this work.
959:
960: \bigskip
961: \centerline{APPENDIX}
962:
963: \appendix
964:
965: \section{Ultraviolet convergence of the function $d(L)$}
966:
967: Here we show that $d(L)$ given by \eq{d} is ultraviolet
968: convergent. For this purpose, it is sufficient to prove that the
969: angular integral \beq
970: \label{Idef}
971: I = \int_{-1}^1 d \cos{\theta} \, f(\cos{\theta}) \left[ 2
972: \frac{\sin^2{\left(\frac{kL}{2v}(x-v\cos{\theta})
973: \right)}}{k^2(x-v\cos{\theta})^2} -\frac{\pi L}{k v^2} \delta\left(
974: \frac{x}{v}- \cos{\theta} \right) \right] \ \ , \eeq where
975: $x=\omega/k$ and $f(\cos{\theta}) = \cos^2{\theta}$ or
976: $\sin^2{\theta}$, is of order $\sim \morder{1/k^2}$ when $k \to
977: \infty$. Indeed, the second term of \eq{Idef} is of order $\sim
978: \morder{1/k}$, leading to the logarithmic UV divergence of $-\Delta
979: E_{\infty}(L)$ (see \eq{deltainf}).
980: % PB: as the eq TGresult1 was suppressed, we also removed the ref to it
981: With the change of variable \beq
982: \label{cv}
983: u = \alpha \, (x - v \cos{\theta}) \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \alpha \equiv \frac{k
984: L}{2 v} \eeq we obtain \beqa I = \frac{L}{k v^2} \left\{
985: \int_{\alpha(x - v)}^{\alpha(x +v)} du \frac{\sin^2{u}}{u^2}
986: f\left(\frac{x}{v}-\frac{u}{\alpha v} \right) - \pi \theta(v -|x|)
987: f\left(\frac{x}{v} \right) \right\} \equiv I_1 + I_2 \ \ , \eeqa where
988: we define \beqa
989: \label{i1}
990: I_1 &=& \frac{L}{k v^2} f\left(\frac{x}{v} \right)
991: \left[\int_{\alpha(x - v)}^{\alpha(x +v)} du \frac{\sin^2{u}}{u^2} -
992: \pi \theta(v -|x|) \right] \ \ , \\
993: \label{i2}
994: I_2 &=& \frac{L}{k v^2} \int_{\alpha(x - v)}^{\alpha(x +v)} du
995: \frac{\sin^2{u}}{u^2} \left( f\left(\frac{x}{v}-\frac{u}{\alpha v}
996: \right) - f\left(\frac{x}{v} \right) \right) \ \ . \eeqa
997:
998: The behaviour of $I_1$ when $\alpha = k L/(2 v) \to \infty$ is easily
999: found by treating separately the two cases $|x| > v$ and $|x| < v$. In
1000: the first case we can replace $\sin^2{u} \to 1/2$ in the integrand and
1001: we find \beq
1002: \label{i1limit}
1003: I_1 \mathop{\sim}_{\ \ \alpha \to \infty\ \ } \frac{L}{k v^2}
1004: f\left(\frac{x}{v} \right) \frac{v}{\alpha} \frac{1}{x^2-v^2} =
1005: \frac{2}{k^2} f\left(\frac{x}{v} \right) \frac{1}{x^2-v^2} \ \ , \eeq
1006: which is $\sim \morder{1/k^2}$. In the second case, $|x| < v$, we
1007: write \beq \int_{\alpha(x - v)}^{\alpha(x +v)} du
1008: \frac{\sin^2{u}}{u^2} - \pi = - \int_{\alpha(x + v)}^{\infty} du
1009: \frac{\sin^2{u}}{u^2} - \int^{\alpha(x - v)}_{-\infty} du
1010: \frac{\sin^2{u}}{u^2} \ \ , \eeq where the replacement $\sin^2{u} \to
1011: 1/2$ can be made in the r.h.s. when $\alpha \to \infty$, leading again
1012: to \eq{i1limit}. Note that when $\alpha \to \infty$, the expression
1013: \eq{i1} is thus equivalent to \beq I_1 \mathop{\ \ \sim\ \ }_{\alpha
1014: \to \infty} \frac{L}{2 k v^2} f\left(\frac{x}{v} \right)
1015: \int_{\alpha(x - v)}^{\alpha(x +v)} du \, {\rm P} \left(\frac{1}{u^2}
1016: \right) \ \ . \eeq
1017:
1018: In the $I_2$ integral defined in \eq{i2}, the contribution from $u \ll
1019: \alpha$ is negligible, showing that typically $u \sim \alpha$. Thus we
1020: can replace $\sin^2{u} \to 1/2$, yielding: \beq I_2 \mathop{\ \ \sim\
1021: \ }_{\alpha \to \infty} \frac{L}{2 k v^2} \int_{\alpha(x -
1022: v)}^{\alpha(x +v)} du \, {\rm P} \left(\frac{1}{u^2} \right) \left(
1023: f\left(\frac{x}{v}-\frac{u}{\alpha v} \right) - f\left(\frac{x}{v}
1024: \right) \right) \ \ . \eeq
1025:
1026: We infer from the above that the behaviour of \eq{Idef} when $\alpha =
1027: k L/(2 v) \to \infty$ is obtained by the following replacement: \beq
1028: \label{formalreplace}
1029: \left[ 2 \frac{\sin^2{\left(\frac{kL}{2v}(x-v\cos{\theta})
1030: \right)}}{k^2(x-v\cos{\theta})^2} -\frac{\pi L}{k v^2}
1031: \delta\left( \frac{x}{v}- \cos{\theta} \right) \right] \mathop{\ \
1032: \longrightarrow\ \ }_{\alpha \to \infty} {\rm P} \left( \frac{1}
1033: {k^2(x-v\cos{\theta})^2} \right) \ \ . \eeq The r.h.s. is $\sim
1034: \morder{1/k^2}$, to be compared to $\morder{L/k}$ (second term of
1035: \eq{Idef}). This completes our proof of the UV convergence of
1036: the function $d(L)$.
1037:
1038: \section{Large $L$ limit of $d(L)$}
1039:
1040: Here we evaluate the limiting value of $d(L)$ (defined by \eq{ddef})
1041: when $L \to \infty$, \beq d_\infty \equiv \mathop{\rm lim}_{L \to
1042: \infty} d(L) = \mathop{\rm lim}_{L \to \infty} \left[ - \Delta E(L) +
1043: \Delta E_{\infty}(L) \right] \ \ . \eeq
1044:
1045: \subsection{Total result for $d_\infty$}
1046:
1047: Using \eq{r1} (with the bracket expressed as in \eq{bracket}) we
1048: obtain: \beqa
1049: \label{shift}
1050: \frac{d(L)}{C_R \alpha_s} &=& i v^2 \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{4\pi^3}
1051: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{\omega} \, \left[ k^2
1052: \cos^2{\theta} \, \Delta_L(\omega, k)+ \omega^2 \sin^2{\theta} \,
1053: \Delta_T(\omega, k) \right]_{\rm ind} \nn \\ &\times& \left\{ \pi \,
1054: \delta(K.V) L/v - 2\,\frac{\sin^2(K.V \,L/(2v))}{(K.V)^2} -
1055: i\,\frac{\sin(K.V \,L/v)}{K.V} {\rm P}\left(\frac{1}{K.V}\right)
1056: \right\} \ . \eeqa We now use the fact that if we replace $L$ by $-L$
1057: in \eq{r1}, the integral over $\omega$, performed by closing the
1058: integration contour in the {\it upper} half-plane, vanishes
1059: identically because the singularities in $\omega$ all lie below the
1060: real axis: \beqa
1061: \label{zero}
1062: 0 &=& i v^2 \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{4\pi^3} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
1063: \frac{d\omega}{\omega} \, \left[ k^2 \cos^2{\theta} \,
1064: \Delta_L(\omega, k)+ \omega^2 \sin^2{\theta} \, \Delta_T(\omega, k)
1065: \right]_{\rm ind} \nn \\ &\times& \left\{ - \pi \, \delta(K.V) L/v +
1066: 2\,\frac{\sin^2(K.V \,L/(2v))}{(K.V)^2} - i\,\frac{\sin(K.V
1067: \,L/v)}{K.V} {\rm P}\left(\frac{1}{K.V}\right) \right\} \ . \eeqa
1068: Adding \eq{zero} to \eq{shift} we get: \beqa
1069: \label{shift2}
1070: \frac{d(L)}{C_R \alpha_s} &=& i v^2 \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{4\pi^3}
1071: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{\omega} \, \left[ k^2
1072: \cos^2{\theta} \, \Delta_L(\omega, k)+ \omega^2 \sin^2{\theta} \,
1073: \Delta_T(\omega, k) \right]_{\rm ind} \nn \\ && \hskip 3cm \times
1074: \left\{- 2 i\,\frac{\sin(K.V \,L/v)}{K.V} {\rm
1075: P}\left(\frac{1}{K.V}\right) \right\} \ . \eeqa Using the first of
1076: the identities \eq{delta}, and then $\delta(x) \, {\rm P}(1/x) = -
1077: \delta'(x)$, we obtain in the $L\to \infty$ limit: \beq
1078: \label{shift3}
1079: \frac{d_\infty}{C_R \alpha_s} = - \pi v^2 \re \int
1080: \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{2\pi^3} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
1081: \frac{d\omega}{\omega} \, \left[ k^2 \cos^2{\theta} \,
1082: \Delta_L(\omega, k)+ \omega^2 \sin^2{\theta} \, \Delta_T(\omega, k)
1083: \right]_{\rm ind} \, \delta'(K.V) \ . \eeq In $\delta'(K.V)$ we trade
1084: the derivative $\partial / \partial \omega$ for $\partial / \partial
1085: v$: \beq
1086: \label{shift4}
1087: \frac{d_\infty}{C_R \alpha_s} = \pi v^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial v}
1088: \frac{1}{v} \re \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{2\pi^3} \, \left[ \Delta_L(kv
1089: \cos{\theta}, k)+ v^2 \sin^2{\theta} \, \Delta_T(kv \cos{\theta}, k)
1090: \right]_{\rm ind} \ . \eeq Using \eq{prop} we have \beqa \left[
1091: \Delta_L(k x,k) \right]_{\rm ind} &=&
1092: \frac{\Pi_L(x)}{k^2\left[k^2+\Pi_L(x)\right]} \\ \left[ \Delta_T(k
1093: x,k) \right]_{\rm ind} &=& \frac{-
1094: \Pi_T(x)}{k^2(x^2-1)\left[k^2(x^2-1)-\Pi_T(x)\right]} \ \ , \eeqa and
1095: denoting $x=v \cos{\theta}$ the equation \eq{shift4} becomes: \beq
1096: \label{shift5}
1097: \frac{d_\infty}{C_R \alpha_s} = v^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial v}
1098: \frac{1}{v^2} \int_{-v}^v dx \int_0^\infty \frac{dk}{\pi} \re \left\{
1099: \frac{\Pi_L(x)}{k^2+\Pi_L(x)} -\frac{v^2-x^2}{1-x^2}
1100: \frac{\Pi_T(x)}{k^2(1-x^2)+\Pi_T(x)} \right\} \ \ . \eeq We finally
1101: perform the integral over $k$, \beq
1102: \label{finalshift}
1103: \frac{d_\infty}{C_R \alpha_s} = m_D v^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial v}
1104: \frac{1}{v^2} \int_0^v dx \re \left\{ \sqrt{\hat{\Pi}_L(x)} -
1105: \frac{v^2-x^2}{(1-x^2)^{3/2}} \sqrt{\hat{\Pi}_T(x)} \right\} \ \ ,
1106: \eeq where \beqa && \hat{\Pi}_L(x) \equiv \Pi_L(x)/m_D^2 = 1 -
1107: \frac{x}{2} \log{\left( \frac{x+1}{x-1} \right)} \nn \\ &&
1108: \hat{\Pi}_T(x) \equiv \Pi_T(x)/m_D^2 = \frac{x^2}{2} \left[ 1 -
1109: \frac{x^2-1}{2x} \log{\left( \frac{x+1}{x-1} \right)} \right] \ \ .
1110: \eeqa
1111:
1112: The longitudinal contribution to \eq{finalshift} reads: \beqa
1113: \label{longshiftresult}
1114: d_{\infty \, L} = - C_R \alpha_s m_D \, A_L(\gamma) \hskip 5cm && \\
1115: \nn \\
1116: \label{al}
1117: A_L(\gamma) = \frac{2}{v} \int_0^v dx \re \sqrt{1-\frac{x}{2}
1118: \log{\left| \frac{x+1}{x-1} \right|} +\frac{i\pi x}{2}} - \re
1119: \sqrt{1-\frac{v}{2} \log{\left| \frac{v+1}{v-1} \right|} +\frac{i\pi
1120: v}{2}} \ . \ \ \ \ \ &&
1121: \label{explicitlongshift}
1122: \eeqa We check numerically that $A_L(\gamma)$ is a smooth increasing
1123: function of the parton Lorentz factor $\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-v^2}$,
1124: increasing very slowly above $\gamma=10$, and saturating when $\gamma
1125: \to \infty$: $A_L(1)=1$, $A_L(10) \simeq 1.3$, $A_L(1000) \simeq 1.5$,
1126: $A_L(\infty) \simeq 1.814$.
1127:
1128: For the transverse contribution to \eq{finalshift} we find: \beqa
1129: \label{transshiftresult}
1130: d_{\infty \, T} = - C_R \alpha_s m_D \, A_T(\gamma) \hskip 5cm &&\\
1131: \nn \\
1132: \label{at}
1133: A_T(\gamma) = \frac{2}{v} \int_0^v dx \frac{x^2}{(1-x^2)^{3/2}}
1134: \re \sqrt{\frac{x^2}{2}\left[1-\frac{x^2-1}{2x} \log{\left|
1135: \frac{x+1}{x-1} \right|} \right] +\frac{i\pi x (x^2-1)}{4}} \ . \ \ \
1136: \ &&
1137: \label{explicittransshift}
1138: \eeqa When $v\to 1$, a singularity at $x \to 1$ appears in the
1139: integrand of \eq{explicittransshift}, and we easily derive the
1140: asymptotic behaviour $A_T(\gamma) \simeq \sqrt{2} \,\gamma$ when
1141: $\gamma \to \infty$, giving: \beq
1142: \label{transshiftresultas}
1143: d_{\infty \, T} \mathop{\simeq}_{v\to 1} - \sqrt{2} \, C_R \alpha_s
1144: m_D \, \gamma \ \ . \eeq Numerically, $A_T(\gamma)$ (which satisfies
1145: $A_T(1)=0$) is quite well approximated by the linear form
1146: $\sqrt{2}(\gamma -1)$ for all values of $\gamma \geq 2$, with an
1147: accuracy of $25 \%$ for $\gamma = 2$ and improving for increasing
1148: $\gamma$.
1149:
1150: Adding \eq{longshiftresult} and \eq{transshiftresult} we obtain
1151: \beq
1152: \label{shiftresult}
1153: d_\infty = - C_R \alpha_s m_D \left( A_L(\gamma) + A_T(\gamma) \right) \simeq - C_R \alpha_s m_D
1154: \left( 1 + \sqrt{2} (\gamma -1) \right) \ ,
1155: \eeq
1156: where the latter approximation has the correct limits at $\gamma \to
1157: 1$ and $\gamma \to \infty$, and can be checked numerically to be
1158: accurate to better than $12 \%$ for all values of $\gamma$ (see
1159: Fig.~\ref{deltashiftfig}).
1160:
1161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1162: \begin{figure}[t]
1163: \begin{center}
1164: \epsfig{figure=A.eps,angle=0,width=7cm}
1165: \end{center}
1166: \caption[*]{The exact function $-d_\infty/(C_R \alpha_s m_D)$ (full line) and its
1167: approximation $1 + \sqrt{2} (\gamma -1)$ (dashed line), as a function of
1168: $\gamma = E/M$, see \eq{shiftresult}.}
1169: \label{deltashiftfig}
1170: \end{figure}
1171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1172:
1173: It is instructive to find what are the typical values of $k$ and
1174: $\theta$ which contribute to the leading behaviour
1175: \eq{transshiftresultas} of $d_\infty$. In \eq{shift5} the transverse
1176: contribution is dominated by $x = v \cos{\theta} \to 1$ when $v\to 1$,
1177: \ie\ $\theta \ll 1$. Using $\Pi_T(x\to 1) = m_D^2/2$, the leading part
1178: of \eq{shift5} can be written as \beq
1179: \label{typk}
1180: d_{\infty} \mathop{\ \ \simeq\ \ }_{v\to 1} - C_R \alpha_s \int_0^1
1181: \frac{d\theta^2}{\theta^2+1/\gamma^2} \int_0^\infty \frac{dk}{\pi}
1182: \frac{m_D^2}{k^2 \left( \theta^2+1/\gamma^2 \right) + m_D^2/2} \ \ .
1183: \eeq The latter is easily checked to arise from $\theta \sim 1/\gamma$
1184: and $k \sim \gamma m_D$ (as well as to yield the result
1185: \eq{transshiftresultas}).
1186:
1187: \subsection{Contribution from radiation to $d_\infty$, in the $v\to 1$
1188: limit}
1189:
1190: In order to see how the bremsstrahlung induced by the initial
1191: acceleration of the parton affects the retardation effect, we single
1192: out in $d_\infty$, given by \eq{shiftresult}, the contribution from
1193: radiation. This contribution $W_\infty$ is obtained by subtracting
1194: \eq{indradvacb} from \eq{indradb}, and then integrating over $k$ and
1195: $\theta$. Here we concentrate on the transverse contribution
1196: $W_{\infty\, T}$ which turns out to be dominant in the $v\to 1$ limit,
1197: \beq
1198: \label{Winf1}
1199: \frac{W_{\infty\, T}}{C_R \alpha_s} = \int_0^\infty \frac{dk}{2\pi}
1200: \int_{-1}^1 d\cos{\theta} \left\{
1201: \frac{z_T(k)\,\sin^2{\theta}}{(\cos{\theta}-\omega_T(k)/(kv))^2} -
1202: \frac{\sin^2{\theta}}{(\cos{\theta}-1/v)^2} \right\} \ \ . \eeq When
1203: $v\to 1$, the above integral is dominated by the domain $\theta \ll
1204: 1$, $k \gg m_D$. For $k \gg m_D$ we have $\omega_T(k) \simeq k +
1205: m_\infty^2/(2k)$, where $m_\infty = m_D/\sqrt{2}$ is the asymptotic
1206: gluon thermal mass, and $z_T(k) \simeq 1$ \cite{BI} can also be
1207: consistently used in \eq{Winf1}. Approximating the integrand in
1208: \eq{Winf1} we obtain \beq
1209: \label{Winf2}
1210: \frac{W_{\infty\, T}}{C_R \alpha_s} \mathop{\ \ \simeq \ \ }_{v\to 1}
1211: - \frac{2 m_\infty^2}{\pi} \int_0^\infty \frac{dk}{k^2} \int_0^1
1212: d\theta^2\,\theta^2 \frac{\theta^2+\frac{1}{\gamma^2}
1213: +\frac{m_\infty^2}{2k^2}}{\left(
1214: \theta^2+\frac{1}{\gamma^2}\right)^2\left(
1215: \theta^2+\frac{1}{\gamma^2}+\frac{m_\infty^2}{k^2} \right)^2} \ \ .
1216: \eeq In the ultrarelativistic $\gamma \to \infty$ limit, the typical
1217: values of $k$ and $\theta$ in the latter integral are $k \sim \gamma
1218: m_\infty$ and $\theta \sim 1/\gamma$. The calculation is now
1219: straightforward and we obtain for the leading term: \beq
1220: \label{Winf3}
1221: W_{\infty\, T} \mathop{\ \ \simeq \ \ }_{v\to 1} - C_R \alpha_s m_D
1222: \gamma /\sqrt{2} \ \ . \eeq This is exactly half of the full result
1223: for $d_{\infty}$, see \eq{transshiftresultas} and \eq{shiftresult}.
1224:
1225: For completeness we quote the result for the longitudinal contribution
1226: to $W_{\infty}$, \beq W_{\infty\, L} \mathop{\ \ \simeq \ \ }_{v\to 1}
1227: \frac{2 C_R \alpha_s m_D}{3\pi} \left( \log \gamma \right)^{3/2} \ \ ,
1228: \eeq which is indeed subleading compared to \eq{Winf3} when $v\to 1$.
1229:
1230:
1231: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
1232:
1233: \bibitem{bj}
1234: J.~D.~Bjorken,
1235: %``Energy Loss Of Energetic Partons In Quark - Gluon Plasma: Possible
1236: %Extinction Of High P(T) Jets In Hadron - Hadron Collisions,''
1237: Fermilab preprint PUB-82/59-THY (1982).
1238:
1239: \bibitem{bdmps94}
1240: R.~Baier, Y.~L.~Dokshitzer, S.~Peign\'e and D.~Schiff,
1241: %``Induced gluon radiation in a QCD medium,''
1242: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 345} (1995) 277
1243: [hep-ph/9411409].
1244: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411409;%%
1245:
1246: \bibitem{TG}
1247: M.~H.~Thoma and M.~Gyulassy,
1248: %``Quark Damping And Energy Loss In The High Temperature QCD,''
1249: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 351} (1991) 491.
1250: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B351,491;%%
1251:
1252: \bibitem{BT}
1253: E.~Braaten and M.~H.~Thoma,
1254: %``Energy loss of a heavy fermion in a hot plasma,''
1255: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44} (1991) 1298; 2625.
1256:
1257: \bibitem{peshierdok}
1258: A.~Peshier and Y.~L.~Dokshitzer, private communications.
1259:
1260: \bibitem{bdmps96}
1261: R.~Baier \etal,
1262: %``Radiative energy loss of high energy quarks and gluons in a finite-volume
1263: %quark-gluon plasma,''
1264: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 483} (1997) 291
1265: [hep-ph/9607355].
1266: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607355;%%
1267:
1268: \bibitem{Zakharov}
1269: B.~G.~Zakharov,
1270: %``Radiative energy loss of high energy quarks in finite-size nuclear matter
1271: %and quark-gluon plasma,''
1272: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 65} (1997) 615
1273: [hep-ph/9704255].
1274:
1275: \bibitem{GLV}
1276: M.~Gyulassy, P.~Levai and I.~Vitev,
1277: %``Reaction operator approach to non-Abelian energy loss,''
1278: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 594} (2001) 371
1279: [nucl-th/0006010].
1280:
1281: \bibitem{MustafaThoma}
1282: M.~G.~Mustafa and M.~H.~Thoma,
1283: %``Quenching of hadron spectra due to the collisional energy loss of partons
1284: %in the quark gluon plasma,''
1285: Acta Phys.\ Hung.\ A {\bf 22} (2005) 93
1286: [hep-ph/0311168].
1287:
1288: \bibitem{dars}
1289: A.~K.~Dutt-Mazumder, J.~e.~Alam, P.~Roy and B.~Sinha,
1290: %``Stopping power of hot QCD plasma,''
1291: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 094016
1292: [hep-ph/0411015].
1293:
1294: \bibitem{Mustafa}
1295: M.~G.~Mustafa,
1296: %``Energy loss of charm quarks in the quark-gluon plasma: Collisional vs
1297: %radiative,''
1298: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 72} (2005) 014905
1299: [hep-ph/0412402].
1300:
1301: \bibitem{phenix}
1302: K.~Adcox {\it et al.} [PHENIX Collaboration],
1303: %``Suppression of hadrons with large transverse momentum in central Au + Au
1304: %collisions at s**(1/2)(N N) = 130-GeV,''
1305: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 022301 [nucl-ex/0109003];
1306: % S.~S.~Adler {\it et al.} [PHENIX Collaboration],
1307: % %``Absence of suppression in particle production at large transverse momentum
1308: % %in s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV d + Au collisions,''
1309: % Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91} (2003) 072303 [nucl-ex/0306021].
1310: S.~S.~Adler {\it et al.} [PHENIX Collaboration],
1311: %``Suppressed pi0 production at large transverse momentum in central Au + Au
1312: %collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV,''
1313: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91} (2003) 072301 [nucl-ex/0304022].
1314:
1315: \bibitem{star}
1316: C.~Adler {\it et al.} [STAR Collaboration],
1317: %``Disappearance of back-to-back high p(T) hadron correlations in central Au +
1318: %Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV,''
1319: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90} (2003) 082302 [nucl-ex/0210033];
1320: J.~Adams {\it et al.} [STAR Collaboration],
1321: %``Transverse momentum and collision energy dependence of high p(T) hadron
1322: %suppression in Au + Au collisions at ultrarelativistic energies,''
1323: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91} (2003) 172302 [nucl-ex/0305015].
1324:
1325: \bibitem{pisarski}
1326: R.~D.~Pisarski,
1327: %``Renormalized Gauge Propagator In Hot Gauge Theories,''
1328: Physica A {\bf 158} (1989) 146.
1329: %%CITATION = PHYSA,A158,146;%%%
1330: E.~Braaten and R.~D.~Pisarski,
1331: %``Resummation And Gauge Invariance Of The Gluon Damping Rate In Hot QCD,''
1332: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 64} (1990) 1338; Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 337} (1990) 569; Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 339} (1990) 310.
1333:
1334: \bibitem{BI}
1335: J.~P.~Blaizot and E.~Iancu,
1336: %``The quark-gluon plasma: Collective dynamics and hard thermal loops,''
1337: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 359} (2002) 355
1338: [hep-ph/0101103].
1339: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101103;%%
1340:
1341: \bibitem{Ichimaru}
1342: S. Ichimaru, `Basic Principles of Plasma Physics', Benjamin, Inc., Advanced Book Program, 1973.
1343:
1344: \bibitem{klimov}
1345: V.~V.~Klimov,
1346: %``Collective Excitations In A Hot Quark Gluon Plasma,''
1347: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 55} (1982) 199
1348: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 82} (1982) 336].
1349: %%CITATION = SPHJA,55,199;%%
1350:
1351: \bibitem{weldon}
1352: H.~A.~Weldon,
1353: %``Covariant Calculations At Finite Temperature: The Relativistic Plasma,''
1354: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 26} (1982) 1394.
1355: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D26,1394;%%
1356:
1357: \bibitem{PST}
1358: A.~Peshier, K.~Schertler and M.~H.~Thoma,
1359: %``One-loop self energies at finite temperature,''
1360: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 266} (1998) 162 [hep-ph/9708434].
1361:
1362: \bibitem{bipp}
1363: J.~P.~Blaizot, A.~Ipp and A.~Rebhan,
1364: %``Study of the gluon propagator in the large-N(f) limit at finite temperature
1365: %and chemical potential for weak and strong couplings,''
1366: hep-ph/0508317.
1367:
1368: \bibitem{DG}
1369: M.~Djordjevic and M.~Gyulassy,
1370: %``The Ter-Mikayelian effect on QCD radiative energy loss,''
1371: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 68} (2003) 034914
1372: [nucl-th/0305062].
1373: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0305062;%%
1374: %%Cited 20 times in SPIRES-HEP
1375:
1376: \bibitem{rhicaz}
1377: F.~Wang [STAR Collaboration],
1378: %``Measurement of jet modification at RHIC,''
1379: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 30} (2004) S1299
1380: [nucl-ex/0404010], see also nucl-ex/0508021;
1381: S.~S.~Adler {\it et al.} [PHENIX Collaboration],
1382: %``Modifications to di-jet hadron pair correlations in Au + Au collisions at
1383: %s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV,''
1384: nucl-ex/0507004.
1385:
1386: \bibitem{dEnterria}
1387: D.~d'Enterria,
1388: %``High p(T) leading hadron suppression in nuclear collisions at s(NN)**(1/2)
1389: %= 20-GeV - 200-GeV: Data versus parton energy loss models,''
1390: nucl-ex/0504001.
1391:
1392: \bibitem{Pantuev}
1393: V.~S.~Pantuev,
1394: %``Jet absorption and corona effect at RHIC: Extracting collision geometry
1395: %from experimental data,''
1396: hep-ph/0506095 and hep-ph/0509207.
1397: \end{thebibliography}
1398:
1399:
1400: \end{document}
1401:
1402: