1: %---------------------------------------------------------------
2: %
3: % baryon and energy flows
4: %
5: % last changes:
6: % 29.10.2005 - Mark
7: % 30.10.2005 - Marek
8: % 31.10.2005 - Mark
9: % 01.11.2005 - Marek
10: % 02.11.2005 - Mark
11: % 04.11.2005 - Marek
12: % 05.11.2005 - Marek
13: % 06.11.2005 - Marek
14: %
15: % -----------revised preprint draft
16: % 23.11.2005 - Marek
17: % ----------- comments of Peter Seyboth to v2
18: % 14.12.2005 - Marek
19: %
20: % 20.01.2006 - arthmetic error corrected, Mark
21: % 23.01.2006 - final tunning, Marek
22: % 24.04.2006 -- Mark
23: % 27.04.2006 -- Marek
24: % 01.05.2006 -- Mark
25: % 12.05.2006 -- Marek
26: % 13.05.2006 -- Marek
27: % 15.05.2006 -- Mark
28: % 16.05.2006 -- Marek
29: % 19.05.2006 -- Mark
30: % 22.05.2006 -- Marek
31: % 31.05.2006 -- Stas comments
32: % 02.06.2006 -- Stas comments
33: % 06.06.2006 -- Marysia
34: %--------------------------------------------------------------
35:
36:
37:
38: %\documentclass[twocolumn,floatfix,superscriptaddress,showpacs,showkeys,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
39: %\documentclass[onecolumn,floatfix,superscriptaddress,showpacs,showkeys,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
40: \documentclass[onecolumn,floatfix,superscriptaddress,showpacs,showkeys,nofootinbib,preprint]{revtex4}
41:
42:
43: \usepackage{epsfig}
44: \usepackage{amssymb,latexsym,amsmath}
45: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{\begin{align} #1 \end{align}}
46:
47:
48:
49:
50: \begin{document}
51:
52: \title{Transparency, Mixing and Reflection
53: of Initial Flows \\
54: in Relativistic Nuclear Collisions
55: }
56:
57:
58: \author{Marek Ga\'zdzicki}
59: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, Johann Wolfgang
60: Goethe Universit\"at Frankfurt, Germany}
61: \affiliation{\'Swi\c{e}tokrzyska Academy, Kielce, Poland}
62: \author{ Mark Gorenstein}
63: \affiliation{Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine}
64: \affiliation{Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Frankfurt, Germany}
65:
66:
67:
68:
69:
70: \begin{abstract}
71: We propose to use the hadron number fluctuations in the limited
72: momentum regions to study the evolution of initial flows in high
73: energy nuclear collisions. In this method
74: by a proper preparation of a collision sample
75: the projectile and target
76: initial flows are marked in fluctuations in the number of colliding
77: nucleons. We discuss
78: three limiting cases of the evolution of flows, transparency, mixing
79: and reflection, and present for them quantitative predictions
80: obtained within several models. Finally, we apply the method to the
81: NA49 results on fluctuations of the negatively charged hadron
82: multiplicity in Pb+Pb interactions at 158$A$ GeV and conclude that
83: the data favor a hydrodynamical model with a significant degree of
84: mixing of the initial flows at the early stage of collisions.
85:
86: \pacs{27.75.Ld, 25.75.Gz}
87:
88: \keywords{relativistic nuclear collisions, longitudinal flow, fluctuations}
89:
90: \end{abstract}
91: \maketitle
92:
93:
94: {\bf 1.} The main goal of investigations of high energy
95: nucleus-nucleus (A+A) collisions is to uncover properties of
96: strongly interacting matter at high energy densities and, in
97: particular, to look for its hypothetical phases and transitions
98: between them. Qualitative features of the rich experimental data
99: collected thus far indicate that the produced matter experiences
100: strong collective expansion and it is close to local equilibrium
101: \cite{qm2004}. Moreover, the properties of the matter change rapidly
102: at the low CERN SPS energies ($\sqrt{s_{NN}} \approx$ 8 GeV)
103: suggesting the onset of deconfinement and thus the existence of a
104: new state of matter, a Quark Gluon Plasma~\cite{na49anomalies,smes}.
105: The properties of this new phase are under active studies in A+A
106: collisions at the BNL RHIC \cite{rhic} ($\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV).
107:
108: We are, however, far from a full understanding of the A+A dynamics.
109: Many models based on different assumptions compete
110: with each other
111: and a consistent
112: description of all aspects of the data within a single model is
113: missing. The largest uncertainties concern the early stage
114: of collisions. It is unclear how initial nuclear flows of energy and
115: charges evolve. The majority of the dynamical models (e.g. the
116: string-hadron transport approaches and the quark-gluon cascade
117: models \cite{hsd,urqmd,ampt}) predict or assume that the colliding
118: nuclear matter is transparent. The final longitudinal flows of the
119: hadron production sources or the net baryon number related to the
120: projectile and target follow the directions of the projectile and
121: target, respectively.~~~ We call this class of models transparency
122: (T-)models. Since the pioneering works of Fermi \cite{fermi} and
123: Landau \cite{landau} statistical and hydrodynamical approaches are
124: successfully used to describe high energy nuclear collisions. Many
125: models within this group, including the first Fermi formulation,
126: assume full equilibration of the matter at the early stage of
127: collisions. The initial projectile and target flows of energy and
128: charges are mixed. The approaches which predict or suppose the full
129: mixing of the projectile and target flows we call the mixing
130: (M-)models. Let us note that there are models which assume the
131: mixing of hadron production sources (inelastic energy) whereas the
132: transparency of baryon number flows, e.g. statistical model of the
133: early stage \cite{smes} and the three-fluid hydrodynamical model
134: \cite{3fluid}.
135: %
136: Finally, one may even speculate that the initial
137: flows are reflected in the collision process,
138: i.e. the flows of matter related to the target and the projectile
139: change their directions.
140: This class of models we call the reflection
141: (R-)models.
142: The sketch of the rapidity distributions resulting from
143: the T-, M- and R-models are shown in Fig.~\ref{sketch}.
144: \begin{figure}[ht!]
145: \epsfig{file=sketch.eps,width=10cm} \caption{Sketch of the
146: rapidity distributions of the baryon number or the particle
147: production sources (horizontal rectangles) in nucleus-nucleus
148: collisions resulting from the transparency, mixing and reflection
149: models. The spectator nucleons are indicated by the vertical
150: rectangles. In the collisions with the fixed number of projectile
151: spectators only matter related to the target shows significant
152: fluctuations (vertical arrows). } \label{sketch}
153: %\vspace*{-0.5cm}
154: \end{figure}
155: The spectra related to the projectile and the target can be easily
156: distinguished in the figure because they are marked in color and
157: hatching the same way as the initial projectile and target nuclei.
158: In this paper we propose a method to mark the matter related to
159: the projectile and the target in fluctuations (the MinF-method),
160: which allows to test experimentally different scenarios of the
161: collision process. Finally we apply the MinF-method to the NA49
162: experimental data on Pb+Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}$
163: = 17.2 GeV) \cite{maciek}.
164:
165: \vspace{0.3cm} {\bf 2.} In each A+A collision only a part of all
166: 2$A$ nucleons interact. These are called participant nucleons and
167: they are denoted as $N_P^{proj}$ and $N_P^{targ}$ for the projectile
168: and target nuclei, respectively. The nucleons which do not interact
169: are called the projectile and target spectators, $N_S^{proj} = A -
170: N_P^{proj}$ and $N_S^{targ} = A - N_P^{targ}$.
171: %
172: The fluctuations in high energy A+A collisions are dominated by a
173: trivial geometrical variation of the impact parameter. However,
174: even for the fixed impact parameter the number of participants,
175: $N_P\equiv N_P^{proj}+N_P^{targ}$, fluctuates from event to event.
176: This is caused by the fluctuations of the initial states of the
177: colliding nuclei and the probabilistic character of an interaction
178: process. The fluctuations of $N_P$ usually form a large and
179: uninteresting background. In order to minimize its contribution NA49
180: selected samples of collisions with fixed numbers of projectile
181: participants. This selection is possible due to the measurement of
182: $N_S^{proj}$ in each individual collision by use of a calorimeter
183: which covers the projectile fragmentation domain. However, even in
184: the samples with $N_P^{proj} = const$ the number of target
185: participants fluctuates considerably. Hence, an asymmetry between
186: projectile and target participants is introduced, i.e. $N_P^{proj}$
187: is constant, whereas $N_P^{targ}$ fluctuates. This difference is
188: used in the MinF-method to distinguish between the final state
189: flows related to the projectile and the target. Qualitatively, one
190: expects large fluctuations of any extensive quantity (e.g. net
191: baryon number and multiplicity of hadron production sources) in the
192: domain related to the target and small fluctuations in the
193: projectile region. When both flows are mixed intermediate
194: fluctuations are predicted. The whole procedure is presented in a
195: graphical form in Fig.~\ref{sketch}. Clearly, the fluctuations
196: measured in the target momentum hemisphere are larger than those
197: measured in the projectile hemisphere in T-models. The opposite
198: relation is predicted for R-models, whereas for M-models the
199: fluctuations in the projectile and target hemispheres are the same.
200:
201: This general qualitative idea is further on illustrated
202: by quantitative calculations performed within
203: several models ordered by an increasing
204: complexity.
205:
206: \vspace{0.3cm} {\bf 3.} Let us begin with
207: considering fluctuations of the net baryon number measured
208: in different regions of the participant domain in collisions of two
209: identical nuclei. These fluctuations are most closely related to the
210: fluctuations of the number of participant nucleons because of the baryon
211: number conservation. In the following the variance, $Var(x) \equiv
212: \langle x^2 \rangle - \langle x \rangle^2$, and the scaled variance,
213: $\omega_x \equiv Var(x)/\langle x \rangle$, where $x$ stands for a
214: given random variable and $\langle \cdots \rangle$ for
215: event-by-event averaging, will be used to quantify fluctuations. We
216: denote by $\omega_P^{targ} \equiv Var(N_P^{targ})/\langle N_P^{targ}
217: \rangle$ the scaled variance of the number of target participants
218: and by $\omega_B \equiv Var(B)/\langle B \rangle$ the scaled
219: variance of the net baryon number, $B$. In each event we subtract
220: the nucleon spectators when counting the number of baryons. The net
221: baryon number, $B\equiv N_B-N_{\overline{B}}$, equals then the
222: number of participants $N_P=N_P^{targ}+N_P^{proj}$. At fixed
223: $N_P^{proj}$, the $N_P$ number fluctuates due to the fluctuations of
224: $N_P^{targ}$.
225: The distribution in $N_P^{targ}$ can be characterized by its
226: mean value,
227: $\langle N_P^{targ}\rangle \simeq N_P^{proj}$, and a scaled
228: variance, $\omega_P^{targ}$. Thus, for the net baryon baryon number
229: $B$
230: %(i.e.
231: %for the total number of participants, $N_P^{targ}+N_P^{proj}$)
232: one finds,
233: %
234: \eq{ \omega_B~=~\frac{Var(N_P)}{\langle N_P\rangle}~\simeq~
235: \frac{\langle \left(N_P^{targ}\right)^2\rangle~-~\langle
236: N_P^{targ}\rangle^2}{2\langle
237: N_P^{targ}\rangle}~=~\frac{1}{2}~\omega_P^{targ}~, \label{omegaB} }
238: %
239: for the fluctuations in the full phase space of participant
240: nucleons. A factor $1/2$ in the right hand side of
241: Eq.~(\ref{omegaB}) appears because only a half of the total number
242: of participants fluctuates. Let us introduce $\omega_B^p$ and
243: $\omega_B^t$, where the superscripts $p$ and $t$ mark quantities
244: measured in the projectile and target momentum hemispheres,
245: respectively.
246: By assumption, the mixing of the projectile and target participants
247: is absent in T- and R-models. Therefore,
248: %at fixed values of
249: %$N_P^{proj}$ and $N_P^{targ}$ the net baryon numbers $B^{p}$ and
250: %$B^{t}$ are constant, consequently
251: %$\omega_B^{p,t}(T)=\omega_B^{p,t}(R)=0$. I
252: in T-models, the net baryon number in the projectile hemisphere
253: equals $N_p^{proj}$ and does not fluctuate, i.e.
254: $\omega_B^{p}(T)=0$, whereas the net baryon number in the target
255: hemisphere equals $N_p^{targ}$ and fluctuates with
256: $\omega_B^{t}(T)=\omega_P^{targ}$.
257: % (see Eq.~(\ref{TB})).
258: These relations are reversed in R-models.
259: % (see Eq.~(\ref{RB})).
260: %$B^{p}(T)$ equals to $N_p^{targ}$ and does fluctuate,
261: %whereas $B^{t}(T)$ equals to $N_p^{proj}$ and is constant
262: %(see Eq.~(\ref{RB})).
263: %
264:
265: %In most experiments only a fraction of all final state particles
266: %%in the projectile or target hemisphere
267: %is measured. Let $\omega$ be the scaled variance for the particle
268: %number fluctuation in a given phase space region {\it \large P}. In
269: %the case of weak correlation between particles inside {\it \large P}
270: %the scaled variance in sub-space of {\it \large P} which models
271: %experimental acceptance can be calculated as (see e.g. \cite{ce1})
272: %
273: %\eq{
274: %
275: %\omega_{acc}~=~1~-q~+~ q\cdot \omega~,
276: %
277: %\label{acceptance} }
278: %
279: %where $q$ is a conditional probability that a particle found in {\it
280: %\large P} hits the acceptance region.
281: %the
282: %projectile and target hemispheres, respectively,
283: %considered phase space region is accepted.
284:
285: We introduce now a random mixing of baryons between the projectile
286: and target hemispheres. Let $\alpha$ be a probability for
287: (projectile) target participant to be detected in the (target)
288: projectile hemisphere. It is easy to show that:
289: %
290: \eq{
291: %
292: \omega_B^t~=~(1~-~\alpha)^2~\omega_P^{targ}~+~2\alpha(1~-~\alpha)~,~~~~
293: \omega_B^p~=~\alpha^2~\omega_P^{targ}~+~2\alpha(1~-~\alpha)~.
294: \label{alpha}
295: %
296: }
297: %
298: %
299: A (complete) mixing of the projectile and target participants
300: is assumed in M-models. Thus each participant nucleon with equal
301: probability, $\alpha=1/2$, can be found either in the target or in
302: the projectile hemispheres.
303: %Hence, starting from $\omega_B$
304: %(\ref{omegaB}) for the full phase space, one finds that measurements
305: %in the projectile or target hemisphere correspond to
306: %Eq.~(\ref{acceptance}) with $\omega=\omega_B^{targ}$ and $q=1/2$.
307: %This leads to $\omega_B^{p}(M) = \omega_B^{t}(M) = 1 - q + q\cdot
308: %\omega_B = 1/2 + \omega_P^{targ}/4$. Even at a fixed $N_p^{targ}$
309: %when $\omega_B = 0$, it follows that $\omega_B^{p}(M) =
310: %\omega_B^{t}(M) = 1/2$ due to mixing of the projectile and target
311: %participants.
312: In M-models the fluctuations in both
313: hemispheres are identical. The limiting cases, $\alpha=0$ and
314: $\alpha=1$ of Eq.~(\ref{alpha}) correspond to T- and R-models,
315: respectively. In summary the scaled variances of the net baryon
316: number fluctuations in the projectile, $\omega_B^p$, and target,
317: $\omega_B^t$, hemispheres are:
318: %
319: \eq{
320: &\omega_B^{p}(T)~=~0~,~~~~~~
321: \omega_B^{t}(T)~=~\omega_P^{targ}~, \label{TB}\\
322: &\omega_B^{p}(M;~rr)~=~\omega_B^{t}(M;~rr)~=~\frac{1}{2}~+~
323: ~\frac{1}{4}~ \omega_P^{targ}~,\label{MB}\\
324: %
325: &\omega_B^{p}(R)~=~\omega_P^{targ}~, ~~~~ \omega_B^{t}(R)~=~0~,
326: \label{RB} }
327: %
328: in the T- (\ref{TB}), M- (\ref{MB}) and R- (\ref{RB}) models of the
329: baryon number flow.
330: When deriving Eq.~(\ref{MB}) we assumed that the baryons are
331: distributed randomly in the rapidity space thus the abbreviation $rr$
332: in the left hand side of Eq.~(\ref{MB}) stands for $random$ $rapidities$.
333: This implies that even for a fixed
334: number of $N_P^{targ}$, i.e. for $\omega_P^{targ}=0$, the baryon
335: number in the projectile and target hemispheres fluctuates,
336: $\omega_B^{p}(M;~rr)~=~\omega_B^{t}(M;~rr)~=~1/2$.
337:
338: In a mixing model in which baryon rapidities do not
339: fluctuate from collision to collision, but their positions are
340: fixed (the $fixed$ $rapidity$, ({\it fr}), model)
341: the scaled variances in the projectile and target hemispheres read:
342: \eq{
343: \omega_B^{p}(M;~fr)~=~\omega_B^{t}(M;~fr)~=~ \frac{1}{4}~
344: \omega_P^{targ}~.\label{MB-fr}}
345: %
346: Note that
347: the term $1/2$ of the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{MB}) is
348: absent in (\ref{MB-fr}).
349:
350: Eventually, for an estimate of the magnitude of the expected
351: fluctuations in different type of models
352: we consider an example of Pb+Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV.
353: The scaled variance of the number of target participants at the
354: fixed number of projectile participants
355: (i.e. $\omega_P^{proj} = 0$)
356: can be calculated within the
357: string-hadronic models. The corresponding results \cite{BHK}
358: obtained for the HSD \cite{hsd} model are shown in
359: Fig.~\ref{omegaP-fig}, left.
360: \begin{figure}[ht!]
361: \epsfig{file=wt.eps,width=8cm}
362: %
363: \epsfig{file=wbp.eps,width=8cm}
364: %
365: \caption{{\it Left}: The scaled variance
366: $\omega_P^{targ}$ for the fluctuations of target participants
367: $N_P^{targ}$ as a function of $N_P^{proj}$ calculated \cite{BHK}
368: within the HSD model. {\it Right}: The scaled variances
369: $\omega_B^{p}$ versus $N_P^{proj}$ obtained within T- (dashed line)
370: and R-models (dashed-dotted line), Eqs.~(\ref{TB},~\ref{RB}).
371: The upper solid line
372: shows predictions of the M-model with random rapidities of baryons
373: (\ref{MB})
374: whereas the lower
375: solid line corresponds to the M-models with fixed rapidities of
376: baryons (\ref{MB-fr}). For
377: %the target hemisphere
378: $\omega_B^t$ the predictions for T- and R-models
379: should be exchanged and
380: the lines for the M-models remain unchanged. \label{omegaP-fig}}
381: %\vspace*{-0.5cm}
382: \end{figure}
383: %
384: Using Eqs.~(\ref{TB}-\ref{MB})
385: and the dependence of
386: $\omega_P^{targ}$ on $N_P^{proj}$ calculated within the HSD model
387: (Fig.~\ref{omegaP-fig} (left)),
388: quantitative predictions concerning the baryon number fluctuations
389: for different
390: models can be obtained. The resulting dependencies of the
391: scaled variance of the baryon number in the projectile
392: hemisphere on $N_P^{proj}$ are shown in
393: Fig.~\ref{omegaP-fig} (right).
394: As expected large fluctuations are seen in R-models,
395: intermediate in M-models and there are no fluctuations in
396: T-models. In the M-model the scaled variance increases
397: by 1/2 when baryon
398: positions in rapidity are assumed to fluctuate.
399:
400:
401: \vspace{0.3cm} {\bf 4.} The T-, M- and R-models for the baryonic
402: flows give indeed very different predictions for $\omega_B^p$ and
403: $\omega_B^t$ for the samples of events with fixed values of
404: $N_P^{proj}$. However, they may be difficult to test experimentally
405: as an identification of protons and a measurement of neutrons in a
406: large acceptance in a single event is difficult.
407: Measurements of charged particle multiplicity in a large acceptance
408: can be performed using the existing detectors.
409: In particular, the first results on multiplicity fluctuations
410: of negatively charged hadrons, $N_-$,
411: as a function of $N_P^{proj}$ were recently obtained by
412: NA49~\cite{maciek} for
413: Pb+Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV.
414: Note that at the CERN SPS and
415: lower energies negatively charged hadrons are predominantly (more
416: than 90\%) $\pi^-$ mesons. In the following we consider T-, M- and
417: R- scenarios within several approaches to particle production in
418: high energy nuclear collisions. We suppose that a part of the
419: initial projectile and target energy, the inelastic energy, is
420: converted into hadron sources. Further on, the numbers of projectile
421: and target related sources are taken to be proportional to the
422: number of projectile and target participant nucleons, respectively.
423: The physical meaning of a particle source depends upon the model
424: under consideration, examples are wounded nucleons (see
425: \cite{wnm,wnm1}), strings and resonances (see \cite{hsd,urqmd}),
426: and volume cells of the expanding matter at the freeze-out in the
427: hydrodynamical models. For the independent sources one finds regarding the
428: scaled variance of $i$-th particle species (see e.g. \cite{source}):
429: %
430: \eq{
431: %
432: \omega_i~=~\omega_i^*~+~\langle n_i^* \rangle ~\Omega_*~,
433: %
434: \label{omega-i} }
435: %
436: where $\omega_i^*$ denotes the scaled variance for $i$-th hadron
437: species (e.g., $i$ may correspond to $h^-$) from a single source,
438: $\langle n_i^* \rangle $ is the average multiplicity from a single
439: source, and $\Omega_*$ is the scaled variance for the fluctuation of
440: the number of sources. Assuming that the number of hadron sources
441: is proportional to the number of participating nucleons,
442: $N_*=const\cdot N_P$,
443: one gets:
444: %
445: \eq{
446: %
447: \langle n_i^*\rangle ~\Omega_* ~\equiv~\frac{\langle
448: N_i\rangle}{\langle N_*\rangle} ~\Omega_*~=~\frac{\langle
449: N_i\rangle}{\langle N_P\rangle} ~\omega_P~\equiv~
450: \overline{n}_i~\omega_P~,
451: %
452: \label{ni} }
453: %
454: where $\overline{n}_i$ is the average multiplicity
455: of the $i$-th species per
456: participating nucleon. Thus the scaled variance~(\ref{omega-i}) of
457: the particle number multiplicity in the full phase space is:
458: %
459: \eq{
460: %
461: \omega_i~=~\omega_i^*~+~\overline{n}_i
462: ~\frac{1}{2}~\omega_P^{targ}~.
463: %
464: \label{omega1-i} }
465: %
466: %
467: Consequently, the scaled variances of the $i$-th hadron multiplicity
468: distribution in T-, M- and R-models read:
469: %
470: \eq{
471: &\omega_i^{p}(T)~=~\omega_i^{*}~,~~~~
472: \omega_i^{t}(T)~=~\omega_i^*~+~
473: %\frac{\langle N_- \rangle}{\langle
474: %N_p\rangle}~
475: \overline{n}_i~\omega_P^{targ}~, \label{T-}\\
476: &\omega_i^{p}(M;~rr)~=~\omega_i^{t}(M;~rr)~=~ \omega_i^*~+
477: ~\overline{n}_i ~\left(~\frac{1}{2}~+~\frac{1}{4}~
478: \omega_P^{targ}~\right)~,\label{M-}\\
479: &\omega_i^{p}(M;~fr)~=~\omega_i^{t}(M;~fr)~=~ \omega_i^*~+
480: ~\overline{n}_i ~\frac{1}{4}~
481: \omega_P^{targ}~,\label{Mfr-}\\
482: & \omega_i^{p}(R)~=~\omega_i^*~+~ \overline{n}_i~
483: \omega_P^{targ}~,~~~~ \omega_i^{t}(R)~=~\omega_i^*~. \label{R-} }
484: %
485: %
486: %The $h^-$ multiplicity fluctuates even when numbers of
487: %participant nucleons,
488: %$N_p^{proj}$ and $N_p^{targ}$, are fixed.
489: Again two different versions of mixing with {\it random rapidities}
490: (\ref{M-}) and {\it fixed rapidities} (\ref{Mfr-}) of the source
491: positions are possible. As an example of M-models with fixed
492: rapidities of the sources let us consider a model which assumes a
493: global equilibration of the matter at the early stage of collisions
494: followed by a hydrodynamical expansion and freeze-out. In this case
495: particle production sources can be identified with the volume cells
496: of the expanding matter at the freeze-out. They can be treated as
497: uncorrelated provided the effects of global energy-momentum
498: conservation laws can be neglected. Due to assumed global
499: equilibration of the projectile and target flows the fluctuations in
500: the projectile and target hemispheres are identical. The model
501: belongs to the class of M-models. In this model there is one to one
502: correspondence between space-time positions and rapidities of the
503: hydrodynamic cells. Thus, the source rapidities do not fluctuate and
504: the scaled variances of hadrons in the projectile and target
505: hemispheres have the form (\ref{Mfr-}).
506:
507:
508: Note that Eqs.~(\ref{T-}) and (\ref{R-}) are
509: strictly valid provided that a source produces particles only in its
510: hemisphere. Due of the finite width of the rapidity distribution
511: resulting from the decay of a single source this condition is
512: expected to be violated at least close to midrapidity. Thus, in
513: order to be able to neglect the cross-talk of particles between the
514: projectile and target hemispheres the width of the rapidity
515: distribution of a single source, $\Delta y_*$, should be much
516: smaller than the total width of the rapidity
517: distribution.
518:
519: Some comments concerning Eqs.~(\ref{T-}-\ref{R-}) are appropriate.
520: There is a general similarity of the expressions for produced
521: particles and the corresponding expressions for baryons,
522: Eqs.~(\ref{TB}-\ref{MB-fr}). There are, however, two important
523: differences. A single source produces particles in a probabilistic
524: way with an average multiplicity $\langle n_i^*\rangle$ and a
525: scaled variance $\omega_i^*$. Consequently, it leads to an
526: additional term, $\omega_i^*$, in all expressions for
527: $\omega_i^{p,t}$,
528: % for all type of models, and,
529: and an additional factor, $\overline{n}_i$, appears in terms related
530: to the fluctuations of the number of sources. Following
531: Eq.~(\ref{ni}) the source number fluctuations can be substituted by
532: $\omega_P^{targ}$, and an average multiplicity, $\langle
533: n_i^*\rangle$, of a single source can be then transformed into an
534: average multiplicity per participating nucleon, $\overline{n}_i$.
535: The term, 1/2, in the r.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{M-}), as that in
536: Eq.~(\ref{MB}), is due to the random rapidity positions of the
537: sources in M-models.
538: %
539: %Let us consider a model which assumes a global equilibration of the
540: %matter at the early stage of collisions followed by a
541: In the hydrodynamical model
542: %expansion and freeze-out. In this case
543: particle production sources can be identified with the volume cells
544: of the expanding matter at the freeze-out.
545: %They can be treated as
546: %uncorrelated provided the effects of global energy-momentum
547: %conservation laws can be neglected. Due to assumed global
548: %equilibration of the projectile and target flows the fluctuations in
549: %the projectile and target hemispheres are identical. The model
550: %belongs to the class of mixing models and we further call it a
551: %mixing-hydrodynamical model. In this model there is one to one
552: %correspondence between space-time positions and rapidities of the
553: %hydrodynamic cells. Thus,
554: The source rapidities do not fluctuate and Eq.~(\ref{M-}) is
555: transformed then into Eq.~(\ref{Mfr-}).
556: %:
557: % \eq{
558: %\omega_i^{p}(M;~hydro)~=~\omega_i^{t}(M;~hydro)~=~ \omega_i^*~+
559: %~\overline{n}_i ~\frac{1}{4}~ \omega_P^{targ}~.\label{M-hydo}}
560:
561: We turn now to a discussion of multiplicity fluctuations
562: of negatively charged hadrons in Pb+Pb
563: collisions at 158$A$~GeV. The value of
564: %ratio
565: $\langle N_- \rangle/\langle N_P \rangle \equiv \overline{n}_-\simeq
566: 2$ was measured for the studied reactions \cite{peter}. For
567: simplicity we assume $\omega_-^*\simeq 1$, this is valid for the
568: poissonian negatively charged particle multiplicity distribution from a
569: single source. Note, in p+p interactions at SPS energies and in
570: the limited acceptance of NA49 the measured distribution is in
571: fact close to the Poisson one \cite{maciek}.
572: This gives:
573: %
574: \eq{
575: &\omega_{-}^{p}(T)~=~ \omega_{-}^{t}(R)~\simeq~1~,\label{pTtR} \\
576: &\omega_{-}^{p}(M;~rr)~=~\omega_-^t(M;~rr)~\simeq~ 2~+~\frac{1}{2}~
577: \omega_P^{targ}~,\label{pMtM}\\
578: &\omega_{-}^{p}(M;~fr)~=~\omega_-^t(M;~fr)~\simeq~ 1~+~\frac{1}{2}~
579: \omega_P^{targ}
580: \label{pMtM-fr} \\
581: &\omega_{-}^{t}(T)~=~
582: \omega_{-}^{p}(R)~\simeq~1~+~2~\omega_P^{targ}~.\label{tRpT}
583: %
584: }
585: %
586: The dependence of $\omega_-^p$ on $N_P^{proj}$ from
587: Eqs.(\ref{pTtR}-\ref{tRpT}) for T-, M- and R-models is presented in
588: Fig.~\ref{omegamin-fig}. .
589:
590: \begin{figure}[h!]
591: \epsfig{file=wnp.eps,width=10cm} \caption{The dependence of the
592: scaled variance of negatively charged particle multiplicity in Pb+Pb
593: collisions at 158$A$ GeV on the number of projectile participants,
594: $N_P^{proj}$, in the projectile hemisphere. The predictions for T-
595: (\ref{pTtR}) and R- (\ref{tRpT}) models are shown by dashed and
596: dashed-dotted lines, respectively. The upper solid line, mixing(rr),
597: corresponds to the M-models with random rapidity positions of
598: the sources (\ref{pMtM}). The lower solid line, denoted as
599: mixing(fr), corresponds to the M-models with fixed rapidity
600: positions of the sources (\ref{pMtM-fr}). For the target hemisphere
601: the lines of T- and R-models should be interchanged, whereas the
602: lines of M-models remain unchanged. We take $\omega_P^{targ}$ from
603: Fig.~\ref{omegaP-fig} (left) for all types of models. }
604: \label{omegamin-fig}
605: \end{figure}
606: %
607: %
608: % The $\omega_-^{p}(M;~hydro)$
609: %(\ref{pMtM-hydro}) and $\omega_-^{p}(M;~WNM)$ (\ref{M-WNM}) are
610: %equal to each other. Their dependence on $N_P^{proj}$ is presented
611: %by the lower solid line in Fig.~\ref{omegamin-fig}. As before
612:
613: %
614: %
615: %
616:
617: \vspace{0.3cm} {\bf 5.}
618: %It was already stressed that
619: %Eqs.~(\ref{T-}-\ref{R-}) are valid for "narrow" particle sources in
620: %rapidity space, which produce particles only in a single hemisphere.
621: In a recent analysis \cite{wnm1} of d+Au interactions at
622: $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$~GeV
623: \cite{Back:2004mr}
624: within the wounded nucleon model (WNM)
625: \cite{wnm} it was found that the wounded nucleon sources emit
626: particles in a very broad rapidity interval which results in the mixing
627: of particles from the target and projectile sources. In the
628: following we consider predictions of this model with respect to
629: multiplicity fluctuations.
630:
631: The WNM assumes that $i$-th particle rapidity distribution in A+A
632: collisions is presented as
633: %
634: \eq{
635: \frac{dN_i}{dy}~=~N_P^{targ}~F_i^{t}(y)~+~N_P^{proj}~F_i^{p}(y)~,
636: %
637: \label{wnm-y-spectr} }
638: %
639: where $F_i^{t}(y)$ and $F_i^{p}(y)$ are the contributions from a
640: single wounded nucleon (identified with a particle source)
641: of the target and
642: projectile, respectively. The model also requires
643: %
644: \eq{ F_i^p(y)~=~F_i^t(-y)~
645: %
646: \label{Fip-Fit} }
647: %
648: in the center of mass system of the collision. The mean number of
649: particles in the rapidity interval $\Delta y$
650: for collisions with $N_P^{proj}$ and $N_P^{targ}$
651: is given by
652: %
653: \eq{ N_i(\Delta y)~=~N_P^{targ}~\int_{\Delta y} dy~
654: F_i^{t}(y)~+~N_P^{proj}~\int_{\Delta y} dy~ F_i^{p}(y)~.
655: %
656: \label{Ni-Delta-y} }
657: %
658: For interaction of identical heavy ions
659: $\langle N_P^{targ}\rangle \simeq
660: N_P^{proj}$, and then Eq.~(\ref{Ni-Delta-y}) yields:
661: %
662: \eq{ \langle N_i(\Delta y)\rangle ~=~N_P^{proj}~\int_{\Delta y} dy~
663: \left[F_i^{t}(y)~+~ F_i^{p}(y)\right]~.
664: %
665: \label{Ni-Delta-y-av} }
666: %
667: Let us consider now fluctuations of $N_i(\Delta y)$ at a fixed
668: $N_P^{proj}$.
669: A contribution to the scaled variance of
670: $N_i(\Delta y)$ (\ref{Ni-Delta-y}) due to the
671: fluctuations of $N_P^{targ}$ reads:
672: %
673: \eq{
674: %\omega_i(\Delta y)
675: \frac{Var[N_i(\Delta y)]}{\langle N_i(\Delta y)\rangle}
676: ~=~\frac{\left[\int_{\Delta y} dy~ F_i^{t}(y)\right]^2}{\int_{\Delta
677: y} dy~ \left[F_i^{t}(y)~+~
678: F_i^{p}(y)\right]}~\omega_P^{targ}~\equiv~ n_i^t(\Delta
679: y)~\alpha^t_i(\Delta y)~\omega_P^{targ}~,\label{omegai-delta-y}
680: %
681: }
682: %
683: where
684: %
685: \eq{n_i^t(\Delta y)~\equiv~\int_{\Delta y} dy~ F_i^{t}(y)~,~~~~
686: \alpha^t_i(\Delta y) ~\equiv~ \frac{\int_{\Delta y} dy~
687: F_i^{t}(y)}{\int_{\Delta y} dy~ \left[F_i^{t}(y)~+~
688: F_i^{p}(y)\right]}~. \label{ni-R}
689: %
690: }
691: %
692: As previously, for simplicity we assume that
693: a single source emits particles according to
694: the Poisson distribution,
695: $\omega_i^*(\Delta y)=1$.
696: This leads to a general expression on the scaled
697: variance for a particle of $i$-th type:
698: %
699: \eq{
700: %
701: \omega_i(\Delta y)~=~
702: %\omega_i^*(\Delta y)
703: 1~+ n_i^t(\Delta y)~\alpha^t_i(\Delta
704: y)~\omega_P^{targ}~.\label{omegai1-delta-y}
705: %
706: }
707: %
708: The parameter $\alpha^t_i$ quantifies the amount of
709: mixing of the projectile and target contributions and
710: can vary between 0 and 1.
711: For full acceptance, $\Delta y =[-Y_{max},Y_{max}]$,
712: Eq.~(\ref{omegai1-delta-y}) transforms to
713: Eq.~(\ref{omega1-i}).
714:
715: The T-, M- and R- limits of the WNM can be formulated in terms of
716: the distribution functions of the single nucleon,
717: %
718: \eq{
719: %
720: & F_i^p(y;T)~=~T_i(y)~\theta(y)~,~~~~ F_i^t(y;T)~=~T_i(-y)~\theta(-y)~, \label{FT}\\
721: & F_i^p(y;M)~=~F_i^t(y;M)~=~M_i(y)~,\label{FM}\\
722: & F_i^p(y;R)~=~R_i(-y)~\theta(-y)~,~~~~
723: F_i^t~=~R_i(y)~\theta(y)~.\label{FR}
724: %
725: }
726:
727: The scaled variances in the projectile and target hemispheres,
728: $\omega_i^p\equiv \omega_i(y\ge 0)$ and $\omega_i^t\equiv
729: \omega_i(y\le 0)$, can be found using Eq.~(\ref{omegai1-delta-y}).
730: It follows that in T- and R-models, the $\omega_i^{p,t}$ coincide
731: with those given by Eq.~(\ref{T-}) and Eq.~(\ref{R-}),
732: respectively. For the M-models this gives the following result:
733: %
734: \eq{
735: %
736: \omega_i^{p}(M;~WNM)~=~\omega_i^{t}(M;~WNM)~=~
737: %\omega_i^*~
738: 1~+ ~\overline{n}_i ~\frac{1}{4}~ \omega_P^{targ}~,\label{M-WNM}
739: %
740: }
741: %
742: which is identical to Eq.~(\ref{Mfr-}). In the WNM all projectile
743: (target) sources are assumed to be identical and their positions are
744: the same and fixed. Therefore, similar to the hydrodynamical model,
745: the term, 1/2, in the r.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{M-}) is absent in
746: Eq.~(\ref{M-WNM}). This is the M-model with the {\it fixed rapidity}
747: positions of the sources. The mixing in the considered version of
748: WNM results from a broad distribution of particles produced by a
749: single source. A complete mixing in the WNM means according to
750: Eq.~(\ref{FM}) that projectile and target source functions become
751: identical.
752:
753:
754:
755: \vspace{0.3cm}
756: {\bf 6.}
757: Let us consider fluctuations in limited phase-space domains in
758: which only fractions, $q^{p,t}$, of all particles in the projectile
759: or target hemispheres are accepted. Then the scaled variances in the
760: acceptance,
761: $\omega^p_{acc}$ and $\omega^t_{acc}$, will be different
762: from the $\omega^p$ and $\omega^t$.
763: We start with the scaled variances $\omega_B^p$ and $\omega_B^t$
764: of the net baryon number fluctuations. Assuming that inside the
765: projectile and target hemispheres the baryon rapidities are not
766: correlated one gets (see e.g.,\cite{source,ce1}):
767: %
768: \eq{
769: %
770: \omega^{p,t}_{B,acc}~ = ~1~-~q^{p,t}~+~q^{p,t}\cdot\omega_B^{p,t}~.
771: \label{acc-pt} }
772: %
773:
774: It can be shown that the scaled variance of the produced particles
775: in the limited momentum acceptance within the M-model with fixed
776: source rapidities (\ref{Mfr-}) reads:
777: %
778: \eq{
779: %
780: \omega_{i,acc}(M,~fr) = 1 + \frac {1} {2} \frac {\langle N_i
781: \rangle_{acc}} {\langle N_P \rangle} \omega_P^{targ}~, \label{hyd}
782: }
783: %
784: where $\langle N_i \rangle_{acc}$ is a mean multiplicity of
785: a particle of $i$-th type
786: in the acceptance. The formula above assumes that the
787: produced particles are uncorrelated in the momentum space, i.e. it
788: neglects effects of motional conservation laws and resonance decays.
789: %
790: %
791: The scaled variance in a limited rapidity acceptance, $\Delta y$,
792: within WNM can be directly obtained from
793: Eq.~(\ref{omegai1-delta-y}). It coincides with that of
794: Eq.~(\ref{hyd}).
795:
796:
797:
798: Let us consider now as an example the
799: NA49 acceptance, which is located in the projectile hemisphere about
800: one and half rapidity units from mid-rapidity, $\Delta y = [1.1;~
801: 2.6]$ in the c.m.s. The acceptance probability was measured to be
802: $q^p \simeq 0.4$~\cite{maciek,kasia} (i.e. about 40\% of negatively
803: charged particles in the projectile hemisphere are accepted).
804: %The
805: %ratio $\langle N_- \rangle/\langle N_P \rangle \equiv
806: %\overline{n}_-\simeq 2$ was measured for the studied reactions
807: %\cite{peter}.
808: In the limiting case of the fixed rapidities of the sources, this is
809: assumed to be valid for both the hydrodynamical and WN models,
810: %of
811: %T-, M- and R-models (\ref{FT}-\ref{FR}) the mixing-hydrodynamical
812: %and WNM models lead to:
813: one finds:
814: %
815: \eq{
816: &\omega_{-,acc}^{p}(T)~\simeq~1, \label{accT}\\
817: & \omega_{-,acc}^{p}(M;~fr)
818: %~=~\omega_{-,acc}^{p}(M;~hydro)
819: ~\simeq~
820: %1~+~n_-^t(\Delta y; M)~\frac{1}{2}~
821: %\omega_P^{targ}~=~
822: 1~+~0.2~\omega_P^{targ}~,\label{accM} \\
823: & \omega_{-,acc}^{p}(R;~fr)~\simeq~
824: %1~+~n_-^t(\Delta y; T)~
825: %\omega_P^{targ}~=~
826: 1~+~ 0.8~\omega_P^{targ}~.\label{accR}
827: %\label{-}
828: }
829: %
830: The relations, $n_-^t(\Delta y; T)=0;~~n_-^t(\Delta y; M)~=~0.5~
831: q^p~ \overline{n}_-;~~n_-^t(\Delta y; R)~=~ q^p~ \overline{n}_-$,
832: with $q^p~\simeq~0.4$ and $\overline{n}_-~\simeq~2$ have been used in
833: Eqs.~(\ref{accT}-\ref{accR}).
834: %For a simplicity
835: %It was assumed that a single source contribution is equal to one.
836: Note that in the limit $q^p\rightarrow 0$ one finds
837: $\omega_{-,acc}^{p}\simeq 1$ for all type of models.
838:
839: The predictions given by Eqs.~(\ref{accT}-\ref{accR})
840: are shown in Fig.~\ref{data}. One
841: may be surprised that different models lead to the same results for
842: most central collisions. This is because $\omega_P^{targ}$ goes
843: to zero at $N_P^{proj}\simeq A$, as it follows from
844: Fig.~\ref{omegaP-fig} (left).
845: The predictions of the
846: T-, M- and R-models differ because of their different response
847: on the $N_P^{targ}$ fluctuations. These fluctuations
848: become small in the most central events. Therefore, the best way to
849: study the mixing-transparency effects is the analysis of the {\it
850: centrality dependence} of the particle number fluctuations in the
851: projectile and target hemispheres.
852:
853: \begin{figure}[ht!]
854: \epsfig{file=wnacc+data.eps,width=10cm} \caption{The dependence of
855: the scaled variance of negatively charged particle multiplicity in
856: Pb+Pb collisions at 158$A$ GeV on the number of projectile
857: participants, $N_P^{proj}$, in the NA49 acceptance located in the
858: projectile hemisphere. The Pb+Pb data \cite{maciek} are indicated by
859: filled circles. For a comparison the result for p+p interactions at
860: 158 GeV \cite{maciek,kasia} is shown by the filled square. The
861: displayed errors correspond to the sum of systematic and statistical
862: uncertainties. The dashed line shows a dependence predicted within
863: T-models (Eqs.~(\ref{accT}) and (\ref{acc-T})), the solid lines
864: correspond to the mixing(fr) models (lower line, Eq.~(\ref{accM})),
865: and the mixing(rr) models (upper line, Eq.~(\ref{acc-M})). The lower
866: dashed-dotted line corresponds to the reflection(fr) models
867: (\ref{accR})), whereas the reflection(rr) models (\ref{acc-R}) are
868: indicated by the upper dashed-dotted line.
869: \label{data}}
870: \end{figure}
871:
872: \vspace{0.2cm} We now discuss an effect of a limited acceptance for
873: the approaches with randomly fluctuating source rapidities. In this
874: case the scaled variances in the projectile and target hemispheres
875: are given by Eqs.~(\ref{T-}-\ref{R-}), provided a width of a
876: rapidity spectrum of particles emitted from a single source is
877: narrow.
878: In a general case, when a rapidity width of the source particles
879: and an acceptance window are comparable in size, it is difficult
880: to make analytical estimates. The problem can be solved in the limit
881: of very narrow sources (a source width, $\Delta y_*$, is much
882: smaller than the experimental acceptance interval, $\Delta y$). The
883: hadrons created by "narrow" sources have correlated rapidities, but
884: Eq.~(\ref{acc-pt}) can be used for the scaled variances of the
885: number of sources assuming that the source rapidities in the
886: projectile hemisphere are not correlated. In this case our
887: Eqs.~(\ref{T-}-\ref{R-}) yield:
888: %
889: \eq{
890: &\omega_{-,acc}^{p}(T;~rr)~\simeq~1, \label{acc-T}\\
891: & \omega_{-,acc}^{p}(M;~rr)~\simeq~ 1~+~ \overline{n}_-~ \left[
892: 1~-~q^t~+~
893: q^t\cdot\left(\frac{1}{2}~+~\frac{1}{4}~\omega_P^{targ}\right)\right]
894: ~\simeq~2.6~+~0.2~\omega_P^{targ}~,\label{acc-M} \\
895: & \omega_{-,acc}^{p}(R;~rr)~\simeq~1~+~ \overline{n}_-~ \left[
896: 1~-~q^t~+~ q^t\cdot~\omega_P^{targ}\right]~\simeq~2.2~+~
897: 0.8~\omega_P^{targ}~.\label{acc-R}
898: %\label{-}
899: }
900: %
901: As before, we use $q^p~\simeq~0.4$ and $\overline{n}_-~\simeq~2$ in
902: Eqs.~(\ref{acc-T}-\ref{acc-R}). The corresponding curves are plotted
903: in Fig.~\ref{data}.
904:
905:
906:
907: The experimental points for Pb+Pb collisions
908: at 158$A$ GeV clearly exclude transparency and reflection approaches
909: discussed here. The mixing model with random fluctuations of a
910: source rapidity and a narrow width also strongly disagree with the
911: data. A reasonable agreement is observed only for the
912: mixing-hydrodynamical and WNM models.
913: We remind that a large degree of mixing was found previously
914: in the analysis of the pseudo-rapidity spectra of charged
915: hadrons produced in d+Au interactions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$~200~GeV
916: \cite{Back:2004mr} within WNM \cite{wnm1}.
917:
918: Note however that the WNM model, used
919: here as a simple example to illustrate the MinF method, can not
920: reproduce many observables connected to collective behavior of
921: matter created in high energy nuclear collisions, like radial and
922: anisotropic flows and the strangeness enhancement. On the other
923: hand, these effects are at least qualitatively described by
924: statistical and hydrodynamical approaches.
925:
926: %
927:
928: \vspace{0.3cm} {\bf 7.} At the end several comments are appropriate.
929: We considered three limiting behaviors of nuclear flows:
930: transparency, mixing and reflection. In general, all intermediate
931: cases are possible and they can be characterized by an
932: additional parameter.
933: %$\alpha_{TR}^{p,t}$, as $
934: %\omega_-^{p,t}~=~\omega_-^*~+~\alpha_{TR}^{p,t} \frac{\langle n
935: %\rangle}{\langle N_p\rangle}~ \omega$.
936: Eq.~(\ref{alpha}) introduces a mixing parameter $\alpha$ for the
937: net baryon number with limiting cases $\alpha(T)=0$,
938: $\alpha(M)=1/2$, and $\alpha(R)=1$ for T-, M- and R-models,
939: respectively. Within WNM a parameter, $\alpha_i^t(\Delta y)$
940: (\ref{ni-R}), defined for each particle species, $i$, and for each
941: rapidity interval, $\Delta y$, was suggested. The limiting cases are
942: again: $\alpha_i^t(\Delta y;T)=0,~ \alpha_i^t(\Delta y;M)=0.5$, and
943: $\alpha_i^t(\Delta y;R)=1$. The values of the mixing parameter can
944: be extracted by fitting the experimental data.
945:
946: The fluctuations of the participant number lead to the fluctuations
947: of the center of mass rapidity ($\Delta y\simeq -1/2
948: \log(N_P^{targ}/N_P^{proj})$. This alone may result in additional
949: multiplicity fluctuations. We estimated that for the NA49 data
950: discussed above the corresponding increase of the scaled variance is
951: smaller than 5\%.
952:
953: The MinF-method can be used independently of the
954: degrees of freedom relevant at an early stage of collisions (e.g.
955: hadrons at a low collision energy or quark and gluons at a high
956: energy). This is because the concepts of the spectators and the
957: participants as well as hadron multiplicity fluctuations are valid
958: at all relativistic energies and for all collision scenarios. In the
959: case of collisions of non-identical nuclei (different baryon numbers
960: and/or electric charge to baryon ratios) one can trace flows of the
961: conserved charges by looking at their inclusive final state
962: distributions (see e.g. \cite{fopi}). An interesting information can
963: be extracted from collisions of two nuclei with different atomic
964: numbers (see \cite{wnm1}).
965:
966: In the case of identical nuclei only the
967: MinF method can be used. It gives a unique possibility to
968: investigate the flows of both the net baryon number and particle
969: production sources.
970: % which are not related to conserved charges.
971:
972: \vspace{0.3cm} {\bf 8.} In summary, a method which allows to find
973: out what happens with the initial flows in high energy
974: nucleus-nucleus collisions was proposed. First, the projectile and
975: target initial flows are marked in fluctuations (the MinF-method) in
976: the number of colliding nucleons. This can be achieved by a
977: selection of collisions with a fixed number of projectile
978: participants but a fluctuating number of target participants. This
979: case is considered in details in the present study. Other selections
980: are also possible. Secondly, the projectile and target related
981: matter in the final state of collisions are distinguished by an
982: analysis of fluctuations of extensive quantities. We apply this
983: method to the NA49 data on multiplicity fluctuations of negatively
984: charged hadrons produced in Pb+Pb collisions at
985: 158$A$~GeV~\cite{maciek}. The results
986: are consistent with the model which assumes
987: a significant degree
988: of mixing of the projectile and target flows at the early
989: stage of collisions followed by the hydrodynamical
990: expansion and freeze-out.
991:
992: \vspace{0.3cm}
993: We would like to thank V.V.~Begun, A.~Bialas, E.L.~
994: Bratkovskaya, S.~Haussler, Yu.B.~Ivanov, V.P.~ Konchakovski,
995: B.~Lungwitz, I.N.~Mishustin, St.~Mr\'owczy\'nski, M.~Rybczy\'nski,
996: H.~St\"ocker, and Z.~ W{\l}odarczyk for numerous discussions.
997: Moreover, we are grateful to Marysia Ga\'zdzicka for help in the
998: preparation of the manuscript. The work was supported in part by US
999: Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF) Cooperative
1000: Grants Program, Project Agreement UKP1-2613-KV-04 and Virtual
1001: Institute on Strongly Interacting Matter (VI-146) of Helmholtz
1002: Association, Germany.
1003:
1004:
1005:
1006:
1007: \begin{thebibliography}{30}
1008: %newref
1009:
1010: \bibitem{qm2004}
1011: For a recent summary see:
1012: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference
1013: on Ultra-Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions,
1014: Oakland, California, USA, 11-17 January 2004,
1015: Eds. H.~G.~Ritter and X.-N.~Wang,
1016: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 30}, S663 (2004)
1017:
1018: \bibitem{na49anomalies}
1019: S.~V.~Afanasiev {\it et al.} [The NA49 Collaboration],
1020: %``Energy dependence of pion and kaon production in central Pb + Pb
1021: %collisions,''
1022: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 66}, 054902 (2002).
1023: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0205002;%%
1024: M.~Gazdzicki {\it et al.} [NA49 Collaboration],
1025: %``Report from NA49,''
1026: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 30}, S701 (2004).
1027: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0403023;%%
1028:
1029: \bibitem{smes}
1030: M.~Gazdzicki and M.~I.~Gorenstein,
1031: %``On the early stage of nucleus nucleus collisions,''
1032: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 30}, 2705 (1999).
1033: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803462;%%
1034:
1035: \bibitem{rhic}
1036: %\cite{Arsene:2004fa}
1037: %\bibitem{Arsene:2004fa}
1038: I.~Arsene {\it et al.} [BRAHMS Collaboration],
1039: %``Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The perspective
1040: %from the BRAHMS experiment,''
1041: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 757}, 1 (2005),
1042: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0410020;%%
1043: %\cite{Back:2004je}
1044: %\bibitem{Back:2004je}
1045: B.~B.~Back {\it et al.},
1046: %``The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC,''
1047: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 757}, 28 (2005),
1048: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0410022;%%
1049: %\cite{Adams:2005dq}
1050: %\bibitem{Adams:2005dq}
1051: J.~Adams {\it et al.} [STAR Collaboration],
1052: %``Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon
1053: %plasma: The STAR collaboration's critical assessment of the evidence from
1054: %RHIC collisions,''
1055: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 757}, 102 (2005),
1056: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0501009;%%
1057: %\cite{Adcox:2004mh}
1058: %\bibitem{Adcox:2004mh}
1059: K.~Adcox {\it et al.} [PHENIX Collaboration],
1060: %``Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus nucleus
1061: %collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration,''
1062: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 757}, 184 (2005).
1063: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0410003;%%
1064:
1065: \bibitem{hsd}
1066: W. Cassing, E.L. Bratkovskaya and S. Juchem,
1067: Nucl. Phys. {\bf A674}, 249 (2000).
1068:
1069: \bibitem{urqmd}
1070: S. A. Bass et al. (UrQMD Collab.),
1071: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 41}, 255 (1998).
1072:
1073: \bibitem{ampt}
1074: %\cite{Lin:2004en}
1075: %\bibitem{Lin:2004en}
1076: Z.~W.~Lin, C.~M.~Ko, B.~A.~Li, B.~Zhang and S.~Pal,
1077: %``A multi-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions,''
1078: arXiv:nucl-th/0411110.
1079: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0411110;%%
1080:
1081: \bibitem{fermi}
1082: E. Fermi, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 5}, 570 (1950).
1083:
1084: \bibitem{landau}
1085: L. D. Landau, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fiz. {\bf 17},
1086: 51 (1953).
1087:
1088: \bibitem{3fluid}
1089: %\cite{Katscher:1993xs}
1090: %\bibitem{Katscher:1993xs}
1091: U.~Katscher, D.~H.~Rischke, J.~A.~Maruhn, W.~Greiner, I.~N.~Mishustin and L.~M.~Satarov,
1092: %``The Three-dimensional (2+1) fluid model for relativistic nuclear
1093: %collisions,''
1094: Z.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 346}, 209 (1993),
1095: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,A346,209;%%
1096: Yu. B. Ivanov, V.N. Russkikh and V. D. Toneev,
1097: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 73}, 044904 (2006).
1098:
1099: %\bibitem{reflection}
1100: %\cite{Kharzeev:2005iz}
1101: %\bibitem{Kharzeev:2005iz}
1102: % D.~Kharzeev and K.~Tuchin,
1103: % %``From color glass condensate to quark gluon plasma through the event
1104: % %horizon,''
1105: % Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 753}, 316 (2005).
1106: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501234;%%
1107:
1108: \bibitem{maciek}
1109: %\cite{Rybczynski:2004yw}
1110: %\bibitem{Rybczynski:2004yw}
1111: M.~Rybczynski {\it et al.} [NA49 Collaboration],
1112: %``Multiplicity fluctuations in nuclear collisions at 158-A-GeV,''
1113: J.\ Phys.\ Conf.\ Ser.\ {\bf 5}, 74 (2005).
1114: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0409009;%%
1115:
1116: %\bibitem{kasia}
1117: %\cite{Anticic:2003fd}
1118: %\bibitem{Anticic:2003fd}
1119: % T.~Anticic {\it et al.} [NA49 Collaboration],
1120: %``Transverse momentum fluctuations in nuclear collisions at 158-A-GeV,''
1121: % Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 70}, 034902 (2004)
1122: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0311009].
1123: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0311009;%%
1124:
1125:
1126:
1127: \bibitem{BHK}
1128: %\cite{Konchakovski:2005hq}
1129: %\bibitem{Konchakovski:2005hq}
1130: V.~P.~Konchakovski et al.,
1131: %``Particle number fluctuations in high energy nucleus nucleus collisions from
1132: %microscopic transport approaches,''
1133: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 73}, 034902 (2006);
1134: arXiv:nucl-th/0511083.
1135: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0511083;%%
1136: %%Cited 1 time in SPIRES-HEP
1137: %E.L. Bratkovskaya and V.P. Konchakovski, private
1138: %communications.
1139:
1140: \bibitem{wnm1}
1141: A.~Bialas and W. Czyz, Acta Phys. Polon. B {\bf 36}, 905 (2005).
1142:
1143: %\cite{Back:2004mr}
1144: \bibitem{Back:2004mr}
1145: B.~B.~Back {\it et al.} [PHOBOS Collaboration],
1146: %``Scaling of charged particle production in D + Au collisions at
1147: %s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV,''
1148: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 72}, 031901 (2005)
1149: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0409021].
1150: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0409021;%%
1151:
1152: \bibitem{wnm}
1153: %\cite{Bialas:1976ed}
1154: %\bibitem{Bialas:1976ed}
1155: A.~Bialas, M.~Bleszynski and W.~Czyz,
1156: %``Multiplicity Distributions In Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions At
1157: %High-Energies,''
1158: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 111}, 461 (1976).
1159: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B111,461;%%
1160:
1161:
1162:
1163: %\bibitem{source}
1164: %
1165: %\bibitem{CE2} A. Ker\"anen et al, J. Phys. G {\bf 31}, S1095
1166: %(2005),
1167: %F. Becattini et al,
1168: %nucl-th/0507039.
1169:
1170: \bibitem{source}
1171: H. Heiselberg, Phys. Rep. {\bf 351}, 161 (2001).
1172:
1173: \bibitem{kasia}
1174: %\cite{Anticic:2003fd}
1175: %\bibitem{Anticic:2003fd}
1176: T.~Anticic {\it et al.} [NA49 Collaboration],
1177: %``Transverse momentum fluctuations in nuclear collisions at 158-A-GeV,''
1178: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 70}, 034902 (2004)
1179: [arXiv:hep-ex/0311009].
1180: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0311009;%%
1181:
1182:
1183: \bibitem{peter}
1184: %\cite{Dinkelaker:2005py}
1185: %\bibitem{Dinkelaker:2005py}
1186: P.~Dinkelaker [NA49 Collaboration],
1187: %``System size dependence of hadron production in A + A collisions at 40-A-GeV
1188: %beam energy,''
1189: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 31} (2005) S1131.
1190: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G31,S1131;%%
1191:
1192: \bibitem{ce1}
1193: %\cite{Begun:2004gs}
1194: %\bibitem{Begun:2004gs}
1195: V.~V.~Begun, M.~Gazdzicki, M.~I.~Gorenstein and O.~S.~Zozulya,
1196: %``Particle Number Fluctuations in Canonical Ensemble,''
1197: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 70}, 034901 (2004).
1198: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0404056;%%
1199:
1200: \bibitem{fopi}
1201: B. Hong {\it et al.} [FOPI Collaboration],
1202: Phys. Rev. C {\bf 66}, 034901 (2002).
1203:
1204: \end{thebibliography}
1205:
1206: \end{document}
1207: