1: \documentclass[12pt,epsf,epsfig,psfig]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: %%%%%%%%%%%
6: \usepackage{epstopdf}
7: \DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `basename #1 .tif`.png}
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%
9: \oddsidemargin 15pt
10: \topmargin 0pt
11: \headheight 00pt
12: \headsep 00pt
13: \textheight 235mm
14: \textwidth 160mm
15: %\voffset=0.5cm
16: \hoffset=-0.5cm
17: \parindent=0pt
18: %\thispagestyle{empty}
19:
20: % put your own definitions here:\def\J{$J/\psi$}
21:
22: \def\J{$J/\psi$}
23: \def\P{$\psi'$}
24: \def\X{$\chi_c$}
25: \def\j{J/\psi}
26: \def\X{$\chi_c$}
27: \def\x{\chi}
28: \def\P{$\psi'$}
29: \def\p{\psi'}
30: \def\U{$\Upsilon$}
31: \def\u{\Upsilon}
32: \def\C{c{\bar c}}
33: \def\B{b{\bar b}}
34: \def\cg{c{\bar c}\!-\!g}
35: \def\bg{b{\bar b}\!-\!g}
36: \def\b{b{\bar b}}
37: \def\q{q{\bar q}}
38: \def\Q{Q{\bar Q}}
39: \def\e{\epsilon}
40: \def\t{\tau}
41: \def\l{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}
42: \def\A{$A_{\rm cl}$}
43: \def\a{\alpha}
44: \def\N{$n_{\rm cl}$}
45: \def\n{n_{\rm cl}}
46: \def\S{S_{\rm cl}}
47: \def\s{s_{\rm cl}}
48: \def\bb{\bar \beta}
49: \def\chiral{\psi {\bar \psi}}
50:
51: \def\CMP{{ Comm.\ Math.\ Phys.\ }}
52: \def\NP{{ Nucl.\ Phys.\ }}
53: \def\PL{{ Phys.\ Lett.\ }}
54: \def\PR{{ Phys.\ Rev.\ }}
55: \def\PRep{{ Phys.\ Rep.\ }}
56: \def\PRL{{ Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }}
57: \def\RMP{{ Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ }}
58: \def\ZP{{ Z.\ Phys.\ }}
59: \def\EPJ{{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ }}
60:
61: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
62: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
63: \def\lsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
64: \def\gsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
65:
66:
67: \begin{document}
68: \begin{flushright}
69: BNL-NT-05/50\\
70: February 27, 2005
71: \end{flushright}
72:
73: \vskip 1cm
74:
75: \centerline{\Large \bf Sequential Charmonium Dissociation}
76:
77: \vskip1cm
78:
79: \centerline{\large F.\ Karsch$^{a,b}$,
80: D.\ Kharzeev$^{a}$ and H.\ Satz$^{b,c}$ }
81:
82: \vskip1cm
83:
84: \begin{center}
85:
86: a) Physics Department, \\
87: Brookhaven National Laboratory, \\ Upton, New York 11973-5000, USA\\
88:
89: \vskip0.3cm
90:
91: b) Fakult{\"a}t f{\"u}r Physik, Universit{\"a}t Bielefeld, \\
92: Postfach 100 131, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany\\
93:
94: \vskip0.3cm
95:
96: c) Centro de F\'{\i}sica Te\'{o}rica de Part\'{\i}culas (CFTP)\\
97: Instituto Superior T{\'e}cnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, \\ P-1049-001 Lisboa,
98: Portugal
99:
100: \end{center}
101:
102:
103: \vskip 0.7cm
104:
105: \centerline{\bf Abstract:}
106:
107: \vskip0.5cm
108:
109: Finite temperature lattice QCD indicates that the charmonium ground state
110: \J~can survive in a quark-gluon plasma up to 1.5 $T_c$ or more, while
111: the excited states \X~and \P~are dissociated just above $T_c$. We assume
112: that the \X~suffers the same form of suppression as that observed for
113: the \P~in SPS experiments, and that the directly produced \J~is unaffected
114: at presently available energy densities. This provides a parameter-free
115: description of \J~and \P~suppression which agrees quite well with that
116: observed in SPS and RHIC data.
117:
118:
119: \vskip1cm
120:
121: Recent studies of the behavior of charmonium states in a deconfined medium
122: show that the ground state \J(1S) survives up to considerably higher
123: temperatures than initially expected. In quenched QCD
124: \cite{Asakawa}-\cite{Iida}, charmonium correlators show no signs of
125: medium-induced suppression at least up to 1.5 $T_c$, while above
126: 2 - 2.5 $T_c$,
127: the signal is strongly modified or disappears. First work in QCD with
128: two quark flavors supports these results \cite{Morrin}. In contrast,
129: the higher excited states seem to disappear very near $T_c$; in quenched
130: calculations, no signal for the \X~is seen at $T=1.1~T_c$ \cite{Datta}.
131:
132: \medskip
133:
134: The results of direct spectral function studies are further supported
135: by potential model analyses \cite{Wong1}-\cite{Digal}, using the
136: color-singlet free energy obtained in (quenched as well as unquenched)
137: lattice QCD to determine the heavy quark potential. These also lead to a
138: \J~dissociation temperature of 2 $T_c$ or higher, while \X~and \P~disappear
139: in the vicinity of 1.1 $T_c$.
140: In contrast, earlier potential model work \cite{K-M-S}-\cite{D-P-S1},
141: based on a heavy quark interaction which underestimated the actual $\Q$
142: potential, had predicted a considerably lower \J~dissociation temperature.
143:
144: \medskip
145:
146: Since \J~suppression was proposed as a signature for quark-gluon plasma
147: formation in nuclear collisions \cite{M-S}, this modification of our
148: understanding of the in-medium behavior of charmonia can be quite
149: important for the interpretation of relativistic heavy ion data.
150: Lattice calculations show that a temperature of 1.5 $T_c$ corresponds
151: to an energy density around 10 GeV/fm$^3$, and 2 $T_c$ to around
152: 30 GeV/fm$^3$, which could move the suppression of direct \J~production
153: out of the range of RHIC.
154:
155: \medskip
156:
157: In hadron-hadron collisions \cite{Antoniazzi} it is found that about
158: 60\% of the observed \J's are directly produced as (1S) states, with the
159: remainder coming to about 30\% from \X~and 10\% from \P~decay. The
160: hierarchy of suppression temperatures thus leads to a sequential
161: suppression pattern \cite{K-S,Gupta}, with an early suppression of
162: the \P~and \X~decay products and a much later one for the direct
163: \J~production.
164:
165: \medskip
166:
167: In this note, we want to consider the experimental results available now
168: from the SPS and from RHIC, and show that the new theoretical understanding
169: can be used to formulate a rather natural parameter-free description of
170: the essential features of the data.
171:
172: \medskip
173:
174: Our considerations are based on the following scenario. The \J~survival
175: probability $S_{\j}$ in $A-A$ collisions is defined as the ratio of
176: the measured rate to that expected if the only modifications are due to
177: the presence of normal nuclear matter. We assume that $S_{\j}$ consists
178: of one term $S_{\psi}$ corresponding to the survival of directly produced
179: \J's and a second term $S_x$ for those coming from the decay of the higher
180: excited states \X~and \P,
181: \be
182: S_{\j} = 0.6~S_{\psi} + 0.4~S_x.
183: \label{model}
184: \ee
185: The relative contributions here are those observed in hadron-hadron
186: collisions \cite{Antoniazzi}.
187: From the mentioned QCD studies we expect $S_{\psi}\simeq 1$
188: for energy densities up to 10 GeV/fm$^3$ or more, while $S_x$ is
189: expected to show suppression effects around the deconfinement point, i.e.,
190: for $\e \simeq 0.5 - 1.5$ GeV/fm$^3$. In principle, $S_x$ could
191: consist of two distinct terms, with different dissociation onsets for
192: \X~and \P. At present, however, neither calculational nor experimental
193: accuracy seems to permit such fine structure studies, and we shall
194: therefore combine the decay of the two states into one term.
195:
196: \medskip
197:
198: We first turn to the onset pattern of suppression and consider the SPS
199: data for \J~production from $Pb\!-\!Pb$ \cite{NA50EPJ} and $In\!-\!In$
200: interactions \cite{Roberta}, together with \P~data from $Pb\!-\!Pb$
201: collisions \cite{Sitta}; the analysis of \P~production in the $In\!-\!In$
202: data is not yet completed\footnote{We
203: restrict ourselves here to symmetric ($A\!-\!A$) data and comment on the
204: $S-U$ results later on.}. In addition, there are reference data from
205: $p-\!A$ collisions with several nuclear targets \cite{Bordalo}, which
206: define the necessary
207: baseline for modifications of the production due to normal nuclear matter.
208: The combined effect of all possible modifications was here parametrized
209: in the form of nuclear absorption, leading to the absorption cross sections
210: \be
211: \sigma_{\j}=4.3 \pm 0.3 ~{\rm mb}
212: \ee
213: for the \J~and
214: \be
215: \sigma_{\p}=7.1 \pm 1.6~{\rm mb},
216: \ee
217: for the \P, respectively \cite{Bordalo}. Using these in a Glauber
218: analysis of $A-A$ data provides the production rates $(d\sigma_i/dy)_G$, with
219: $i=\j,~\p$, as they would be if there were no effects beyond those caused
220: by the presence of normal nuclear matter \cite{K-L-N-S}. The survival
221: probability is then defined as
222: \be
223: S_i = {(d\sigma_i/dy) \over (d\sigma_i/dy)_G},
224: \label{surv}
225: \ee
226: describing whatever anomalous effects arise. The centrality dependence of
227: the $A\!-\!A$ data is determined through the number $N_{part}$ of
228: participants,
229: which is measured directly through a zero degree calorimeter. A Glauber
230: analysis then provides the density $n_{part}$ of participants in the
231: transverse
232: overlap region $A$ of the collision \cite{K-L-N-S}, and the corresponding
233: energy density is given by the Bjorken estimate
234: \be
235: \e = {w_h \over A \tau_0} \left({dN_h \over dy}\right)_{AA}
236: = {\nu_h w_h \over \tau_0} n_{part};
237: \label{bj}
238: \ee
239: here $(dN_h/dy)_{AA}$ denotes the hadron multiplicity at the given
240: centrality, $w_h$ the average hadron energy, and $\nu_h$ the average
241: number of hadrons emitted per participant nucleon (the values of $\nu_h$
242: and $w_h$ can depend on centrality). For the equilibration time of the
243: medium, we take $\tau_0=1$ fm, so that corrections for other possible
244: values can easily be carried out. In our context, however, the
245: formation time of the charmonium states in question should be less than
246: the formation time of the medium, which is the case if $\tau_0=1$ fm.
247: The actual values of $\e$ we will cite
248: here were obtained by an event generator determination of the NA60
249: collaboration and is based on VENUS \cite{Roberta}. It should be noted,
250: however, that with constant $\nu_h\simeq 2$ and $w_h\simeq 0.5$ GeV, we
251: get very similar results, while an event generator determination based on RQMD
252: as input (used by the NA50 collaboration \cite{NA50EPJ}) leads to values
253: which are higher by about 10\%.
254:
255: \medskip
256:
257: We now return to our basic scenario, assuming that at present energy
258: densities the directly produced \J~are unaffected, and the suppression
259: patterns of the excited states \X~and \P~are about the same. This implies
260: that if we use the \P~data to form $0.4~S_{\p} + 0.6$, then as function
261: of the energy density this should coincide with the measured \J~results.
262: In Fig.\ \ref{scaling}, we see that this is indeed quite well fulfilled,
263: for the overlap of \J~and \P~data as well as for the convergence to the
264: \J~``saturation'' value of about 60\%.
265:
266: \begin{figure}[htb]
267: \centerline{\epsfig{file=scaling.eps,width=6.5cm}}
268: \caption{Universal \P~and \J~suppression at the SPS}
269: \label{scaling}
270: \end{figure}
271:
272: \medskip
273:
274: Next we want to check if this pattern continues for higher energy densities
275: and therefore turn to the recently presented preliminary RHIC data; its
276: higher collision energy can provide correspondingly higher energy densities.
277: The \J~production rate $R_{Au-Au}$ in $Au\!-\!Au$ interactions is given
278: relative to the result from scaled $p\!-\!p$ collisions, as shown in Fig.\
279: \ref{npart} as function of the number of participant nucleons \cite{hugo}.
280:
281: \begin{figure}[htb]
282: \centerline{\epsfig{file=hrate-npart.eps,width=6.5cm}}
283: \caption{\J~production rates for $Au-\!Au$ collisions at
284: $\sqrt s=200$ GeV \cite{hugo}}
285: \label{npart}
286: \end{figure}
287:
288: \medskip
289:
290: In order to convert the rates $R_{Au-Au}$ into survival probabilities, we
291: have to know what would be expected if only normal nuclear matter were
292: present. At RHIC, this information is provided through $d\!-\!Au$ studies
293: \cite{dAu}; the resulting nuclear modification factor, specifying the
294: production rate relative to scaled $p\!-\!p$ collisions, is shown in
295: Fig.\ \ref{dAu}.
296:
297: \begin{figure}[htb]
298: \centerline{\epsfig{file=R-dAu.eps,width=5.5cm}}
299: \caption{\J~production in $d-Au$ collisions at $\sqrt s=200$ GeV}
300: \label{dAu}
301: \end{figure}
302:
303: \medskip
304:
305: To quantify these RHIC results, with their presently rather limited
306: statistics, we adopt a description similar to that used for SPS results
307: and apply the well-known simplified absorption form
308: \be
309: S \simeq \exp\{-n_0 \sigma_{\rm diss} L\},
310: \label{path}
311: \ee
312: where $L$ denotes the path of the $\C$ in the nuclear medium and
313: $n_0=0.17$ fm$^{-3}$ denotes normal
314: nuclear density. A Glauber analysis \cite{K-L-N} provides the relation
315: between impact parameter $b$ and the number of collisions $N_{coll}$, and
316: simple geometry gives $L =[R_A^2 - b^2]^{1/2}$ in terms of $b$ and the
317: nuclear radius $R_A$. A fit of Eq.\ (\ref{path}) to the data of
318: Fig.\ \ref{dAu} gives\footnote{In the fit, we neglect the most
319: peripheral point at $N_{coll}$, which corresponds to $b > R_{Au}$
320: and is thus due to nuclear surface rather than medium effects.}
321: $$
322: \sigma_{\rm diss}(y=1.8) = 3.1 \pm 0.2 ~{\rm mb}
323: $$
324: \vskip-0.6cm
325: $$
326: \sigma_{\rm diss}(y=0) = 1.2 \pm 0.4 ~{\rm mb}
327: $$
328:
329: \vskip-0.4cm
330: \be
331: \sigma_{\rm diss}(y=-1.7) = -0.1 \pm 0.2 ~{\rm mb}
332: \label{cross}
333: \ee
334:
335: \medskip
336:
337: for the corresponding \J~dissociation cross sections; for $y=-1.7$,
338: there are thus essentially no nuclear modifications. We note that
339: here, as for the SPS case, these cross sections are just a global
340: way to account for whatever nuclear effects can arise. A more detailed
341: analysis based on shadowing and absorption is given in \cite{ramona-shadow};
342: an analysis based on the Color Glass Condensate approach has recently been
343: performed in \cite{Kharzeev:2005zr}. In the latter approach,
344: the factorization of the shadowing and absorption corrections does not occur;
345: nevertheless, here we use the equation (\ref{path}) just as a way to
346: parameterize the data.
347:
348: \medskip
349:
350: For $A\!-\!A$ collisions at RHIC energy, we make use of the same simplified
351: form (\ref{path}). The geometry connecting the impact parameter $b$ and path
352: length $L$ in $p-Au$ and $Au-Au$ collisions is illustrated in Fig.\
353: \ref{impact}; the relation between $b$ and $N_{part}$ is again given by
354: a Glauber analysis \cite{K-N}. We thus here obtain for the survival
355: probability
356: \be
357: S^{AA}_i(y,N_{part})= {R_{AA}(y,N_{part}) \over
358: \exp\{-n_0 [\sigma_{\rm diss}(y)
359: + \sigma_{\rm diss}(-y)] L\}},
360: \label{S-AA}
361: \ee
362: corresponding to the fact that for $y \not= 0$ the charmonium state
363: passes one nucleus at rapidity $y$, the other at rapidity $-y$.
364:
365: \begin{figure}[htb]
366: \centerline{\epsfig{file=geo.eps,width=8.5cm}}
367: \caption{Impact parameter relation between $p-\!A$ and $A-\!A$ collisions}
368: \label{impact}
369: \end{figure}
370:
371: \medskip
372:
373: Applying eq.\ \ref{S-AA} to the rates shown in Fig.\ \ref{npart} together
374: with the nuclear modification cross sections (\ref{cross}) provides the
375: survival probability as function of $N_{part}$. The corresponding energy
376: densities have been calculated in a Glauber analysis based directly on
377: the PHENIX $E_T$ data \cite{phenix-bj}, and in Fig.\ \ref{in-rhic} we
378: compare the RHIC results to those from the SPS.
379:
380: \begin{figure}[htb]
381: \vspace*{0.2cm}
382: \centerline{\epsfig{file=hsps_rhic2.eps,width=7cm,height=5cm}}
383: \caption{\J~suppression as function of energy density}
384: \label{in-rhic}
385: \end{figure}
386:
387: \medskip
388:
389: It is seen that the two data sets are quite compatible, both in the onset
390: and in the flattening at about 50 - 60\%. Concerning the RHIC data, it
391: should be emphasized that the choice of $\t_0=1$ fm is certainly debatable;
392: a smaller value would move the RHIC points to correspondingly larger $\e$
393: values.
394: %\footnote{It should be noted that we are interested in the energy
395: %density at the time when the quarkonium state is formed, and this formation
396: %time should not depend on the collision energy.}.
397:
398: \medskip
399:
400: So far we have considered only symmetric ($A\!-\!A$) collisions. We find,
401: however, that the \P~production measured in $S\!-\!U$ interactions at the SPS
402: \cite{SU} also agrees quite well with the pattern shown in Fig.\
403: \ref{scaling}. In contrast, the reported $S\!-\!U$ \J~rates \cite{SU}
404: do not show an onset of suppression
405: at the centrality at which it sets in for $In\!-\!In$ collisions. The reason
406: for this is not clear, although two special features have been pointed out.
407: The centrality dependence of the $S\!-\!U$ data is determined by transverse
408: energy ($E_T$) measurements, not by the more reliable method based on
409: the zero degree calorimeter specifying directly the number of spectator
410: nucleons. For $Pb-Pb$ collisions, it is observed that the centrality
411: dependences obtained from $E_T$ and $E_{ZDC}$ measurements can in fact
412: show differences. Moreover, it has been noted that a 10\% shift in the
413: normalization of the $S\!-\!U$ data would lead to full agreement between
414: all SPS data sets.
415:
416: \medskip
417:
418: \J~production at RHIC has also been adressed in terms of anomalous
419: suppression followed by regeneration at hadronization \cite{recom}. Such
420: a scenario assumes first a strong anomalous suppression of the overall
421: \J~production, including that of the $1S$ state, and subsequently a
422: renewed \J~formation at the hadronization stage, due to a pairing
423: of $c$ and$\bar c$ quarks from different nucleon-nucleon collisions.
424: The latter mechanism becomes possible at RHIC energies because of abundant
425: $\C$ production. It leads to rates increasing with centrality, which
426: are taken to just compensate the dropping direct production. In such
427: an approach, the agreement between central SPS data (with no regeneration)
428: and RHIC rates (with considerable regeneration) is coincidental.
429: We also note that the anomalous suppression assumed for direct \J~production
430: in the regeneration approach is not in accord with what we know today about
431: \J~survival in a quark-gluon plasma, as found in statistical QCD.
432:
433: \medskip
434:
435: Finally we turn to a further check of these considerations. It was
436: pointed out some time ago that the effect of \J~suppression could
437: also manifest itself in the transverse momentum behaviour
438: \cite{early,K-N-S}, and in fact the pattern resulting from
439: sequential decay differs strongly from that due to
440: regeneration \cite{T-M}.
441:
442: \medskip
443:
444: The basic effect of a nuclear medium on the transverse momentum
445: behaviour of hard processes is a collision broadening of the incident
446: parton momentum; this in turn leads to a broadening of the transverse
447: momentum distribution of the charmonia formed by hard parton interactions,
448: (dominantly gluon fusion).
449: It was shown that a random walk approach leads to an average squared
450: transverse \J~momentum
451: \be
452: \langle p_T^2 \rangle_{pA} = \langle p_T^2 \rangle_{pp} + N_c^A \delta_0
453: \label{pTpA}
454: \ee
455: for $p\!-\!A$ and to
456: \be
457: \langle p_T^2 \rangle_{AA} = \langle p_T^2 \rangle_{pp} + N_c^{AA} \delta_0
458: \label{pTAA}
459: \ee
460: for $A\!-\!A$ collisions. Here $N_c^A$ denotes the average number of
461: pre-fusion collisions of the projeticle parton in the target nucleus $A$,
462: and $N_c^{AA}$ the sum of the average number of collisions of a projectile
463: parton in the target and vice versa, at the given centrality.
464: The parameter $\delta_0$ specifies the average ``kick'' which
465: the incident parton receives in each subsequent collision. The basic
466: parameters determining the $p_T$-broadening in nuclear matter
467: are thus the elementary $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{pp}$ from
468: $p\!-\!p$ interactions and the value of $\delta_0$, determined by
469: corresponding $p\!-\!A$ data; both depend on the collision energy.
470: The $A$-dependence of $N_c^A$ as well as the behaviour of $N_c^{AA}$
471: as function of centrality can be obtained through a Glauber analysis;
472: the latter defines the ``normal'' centrality dependence of
473: $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{AA}$. Such an analysis also has
474: to include the normal absorption of the produced charmonia in nuclear
475: matter; this effectively shifts the fusion point for the observed charmonia
476: further ``down-stream'' \cite{K-N-S}.
477:
478: \medskip
479:
480: A compilation of \J~transverse momentum data from the SPS \cite{transv}
481: is shown in Fig.\ \ref{PT}; it clearly indicates first the increase of the
482: average transverse momentum from $p\!-\!p$ to $p\!-\!A$ (for $A=Pb$), and
483: then a further increase with centrality for nucleus-nucleus collisions.
484: The preliminary data for the average $p_T^2$ observed in \J~production
485: at RHIC is shown in Fig.\ \ref{PT-rhic} \cite{hugo,Gunji}. Here we note
486: that while the muon arm data ($ |y| \in [1.2,2.2]$) shows the expected
487: broadening when going from $p\!-\!p$ to $d\!-\!Au$, the central electron
488: data ($|y|\leq 0.35$) does not follow this pattern. Since our analysis is
489: based on such a broadening, we concentrate here on muon data. More statistics
490: at central rapidity should clarify this problem. We note that since
491: both $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{pp}$ and $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{dA}$
492: can in general depend on rapidity as well as on collision energy, each
493: data set requires a separate analyis.
494:
495: \begin{figure}[h]
496: \begin{minipage}[t]{7cm}
497: \epsfig{file=paula-pt.eps,width=7.5cm,height=5.5cm}
498: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
499: \caption{\J~transverse momentum behaviour at the SPS\cite{transv}}
500: \label{PT}
501: \end{minipage}
502: \hspace{1.6cm}
503: \begin{minipage}[t]{7cm}
504: \vspace*{-4.9cm}
505: %\hskip-0.3cm
506: \epsfig{file=rhic-pT,width=6.4cm,height=4.7cm}
507: \vspace*{0.2cm}
508: \caption{\J~transverse momentum behaviour at RHIC \cite{hugo,Gunji}}
509: \label{PT-rhic}
510: \end{minipage}
511: \end{figure}
512:
513: \medskip
514:
515: At SPS energy, one has $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{pp} = 1.25 \pm 0.05$
516: (GeV/c)$^2$ and $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{pU} = 1.49 \pm 0.05$ (GeV/c)$^2$
517: \cite{transv}. The average number of pre-fusion collisions is calculated
518: in a Glauber analysis \cite{K-N-S}, and with the normal nuclear absorption
519: specified by the average of eqns.\ (2/3) it is found to be about 3. From
520: eq.\ (\ref{pTpA}) we then obtain
521: \be
522: \delta_0^{SPS} = 0.083 \pm 0.023~{\rm GeV}^2
523: \label{delta-sps}
524: \ee
525: for the average projectile parton broadening in the target nucleus.
526:
527: \medskip
528:
529: From the RHIC $\mu^+\mu^-$ data, we obtain $<p_T^2>_{pp} = 2.51 \pm 0.21$
530: (GeV/c)$^2$ and $<p_T^2>_{dAu} = 3.96 \pm 0.28$ (GeV/c)$^2$ \cite{hugo,Gunji};
531: for the latter value, we have taken the average of the positive and negative
532: rapidity ranges, since this is also done for the corresponding $Au\!-\!Au$
533: data. A corresponding Glauber analysis, with normal nuclear absorption
534: specified by eq.\ (\ref{cross}), gives nearly 3.5 pre-fusion parton collisions
535: and leads to
536: \be
537: \delta_0^{RHIC} = 0.42 \pm 0.09~{\rm GeV}^2
538: \label{delta-rhic}
539: \ee
540: for the corresponding parton broadening in the large rapidity region.
541:
542: \medskip
543:
544: {In a sequential dissociation scenario, the transverse momentum behaviour
545: below the onset of exited state suppression is that of charmonia suffering
546: only initial state broadening and normal nuclear absorption. Once the
547: higher states are suppressed, one has once again only direct \J's
548: experiencing initial state effects and normal absorption. Hence
549: apart from possible fluctuations in the suppression region, one should
550: observe the $p_T$ behaviour as given by eqs.\ (\ref{pTpA}) and (\ref{pTAA}).
551: In other words, the \J~transverse momentum should be determined only by
552: the initial nuclear medium. This again predicts a common behaviour of
553: measurements from SPS and RHIC. Given the values of $\delta_0$ as
554: determined above, data for $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{AA}$
555: and $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{pp}$ define
556: \be
557: N_c^{AA} = \{\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{AA} -
558: \langle p_T^2 \rangle_{pp}\} / \delta_0
559: \label{pTmeasure}
560: \ee
561: as a characteristic measure of transverse momentum behaviour.
562: In Fig.\ \ref{pTcurve} we show the SPS data from $Pb\!-\!Pb$ \cite{transv}
563: and $In\!-\!In$ \cite{In-pT} collisions together with the RHIC muon data
564: \cite{hugo,Gunji} and find that they indeed agree quite well. Once the
565: corresponding broadening pattern for the RHIC electron data is determined,
566: it should also follow this curve, even though the centrality dependent
567: values for $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{AA}$ can be quite different.}
568:
569: \begin{figure}[htb]
570: \centerline{\epsfig{file=rncol.eps,width=8cm,height=6cm}}
571: \caption{Transverse momentum broadening at SPS and RHIC}
572: \label{pTcurve}
573: \end{figure}
574:
575: \medskip
576:
577: As mentioned, the centrality dependence of $N_c^{AA}$ has also
578: been calculated directly in a Glauber analysis \cite{K-N-S}; the result
579: is included in Fig.\ \ref{pTcurve}. It lies consistently somewhat higher
580: than the results obtained from the data, which presumably comes from
581: using a larger normal suppression.
582:
583: \medskip
584:
585: In contrast to the increasing $p_T$-broadening determined
586: by initial state parton scattering, \J~production through $\C$ pairing
587: at hadronization leads to a centrality-independent
588: $\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{AA}$ \cite{T-M}. Remnant direct production will
589: of course modify this, but a strong regeneration component should in
590: any case considerably weaken the centrality dependence.
591:
592: \medskip
593:
594: The lack of the feed-down contributions to the observed \J~'s and
595: the presence of the plasma may also affect \J~ polarization
596: \cite{Ioffe:2003rd,Gupta:1998ut}, even though the theoretical
597: description of quarkonium polarization has so far been notoriously
598: difficult. Nevertheless, the predicted change of polarization may occur,
599: and should be investigated experimentally.
600:
601: \medskip
602:
603: We conclude that present \J~production data agree quite well with the
604: expectations based on quark-gluon plasma formation. The observed
605: onset of anomalous \J~suppression now coincides, within errors, with
606: that found for \P~production, and the corresponding energy density
607: agrees with that expected from finite temperature QCD for the dissociation
608: of higher excited charmonium states. The \J~production remaining beyond
609: this initial anomalous suppression, at about 60 \%, agrees with that
610: predicted by a survival of directly produced $1S$ charmonium states and
611: thus is also in accord with present QCD calculations. Further checks can
612: come from measurements of \P~production in $In\!-\!In$ collisions,
613: from an eventual onset of direct \J~suppression at higher $\e$ (LHC),
614: and from similar results for \U~production in nuclear collisions.
615:
616: \vskip1cm
617:
618: \centerline{\bf Acknowledgements}
619:
620: \vskip0.3cm
621:
622: It is a pleasure to thank R.\ Arnaldi, P.\ Bordalo, R.\ Granier de Cassagnac,
623: T.\ Gunji, C.\ Louren{\c c}o, M.\ Nardi and R.\ L.\ Thews for discussions and
624: valuable help in obtaining and/or analyzing the data. The work of D.K. and
625: F.K. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No.
626: DE-AC02-98CH10886.
627:
628:
629:
630: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
631:
632: \bibitem{Asakawa} M.\ Asakawa, T.\ Hatsuda and Y.\ Nakahara,
633: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ 46 (2001) 459:\\
634: M.\ Asakawa and T.\ Hatsuda, \PRL 92 (2004) 012001.
635:
636: \bibitem{Umeda} T.\ Umeda et al., Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A16 (2001) 2215.
637:
638: \bibitem{Datta} S.\ Datta et al., \PR D 69 (2004) 094507.
639:
640: \bibitem{Iida} H.\ Iida et al., hep-lat/0509129.
641:
642: \bibitem{Morrin} R.\ Morrin et al., hep-lat0509115.
643:
644: \bibitem{Wong1} C.-Y.\ Wong, \PR C 72 (2005) 034906.
645:
646: \bibitem{Alberico} W.\ Alberico et al., hep-ph/0507084.
647:
648: \bibitem{Wong2} C.-Y.\ Wong, hep-ph/05509088.
649:
650: \bibitem{Digal} S.\ Digal, F.\ Karsch and H.\ Satz, in preparation
651:
652: \bibitem{K-M-S} F.\ Karsch, M.-T.\ Mehr and H.\ Satz, \ZP C 37 (1988) 617
653:
654: \bibitem{K-S} F.\ Karsch and H.\ Satz, \ZP C 51 (1991) 209.
655:
656: \bibitem{D-P-S1} S.\ Digal, P.\ Petreczky and H.\ Satz, \PL B 514 (2001) 57.
657:
658: \bibitem{M-S} T.\ Matsui and H.\ Satz, \PL B 178 (1986) 416.
659:
660: \bibitem{Antoniazzi} L.\ Antoniazzi et al., \PR D 46 (1992) 4828;
661: \PRL 70 (1993) 383.
662:
663: \bibitem{Gupta} S.\ Gupta and H.\ Satz, \PL B 283 (1992) 439;\\
664: %\bibitem{D-P-S}
665: S.\ Digal, P.\ Petreczky and H.\ Satz, \PR D 64 (2001) 094015.
666:
667: \bibitem{NA50EPJ} B.\ Alessandro et al.\ (NA50), \EPJ C 39 (2005) 335.
668:
669: \bibitem{Roberta} R.\ Arnaldi et al.\ (NA60), Quark Matter 2005
670:
671: \bibitem{Sitta} M.\ Sitta et al.\ (NA50), hep-ex/0405056.
672:
673: \bibitem{Bordalo} B.\ Alessandro et al.\ (NA50), \EPJ C 33 (2004) 31.
674:
675: \bibitem{K-L-N-S} D.\ Kharzeev et al., \ZP C 74 (1997) 307.
676: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612217;%%
677:
678: \bibitem{hugo} H.\ Pereira da Costa et al.\ (PHENIX), Quark Matter 2005.
679:
680: \bibitem{dAu} S.\ S.\ Adler et al.\ (PHENIX), nucl-ex/0507032
681:
682: \bibitem{K-L-N}
683: D.~Kharzeev, E.~Levin and M.~Nardi,
684: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 730}, 448 (2004)
685: [Erratum-ibid.\ A {\bf 743}, 329 (2004)]
686: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212316].
687:
688: \bibitem{ramona-shadow} R.\ Vogt, \PR C71 (2005) 054902.
689:
690: \bibitem{Kharzeev:2005zr}
691: D.~Kharzeev and K.~Tuchin,
692: arXiv:hep-ph/0510358.
693:
694: \bibitem{K-N} D.\ Kharzeev and M.\ Nardi, \PL B 507 (2001) 121;
695: M.\ Nardi, private communication.
696:
697: \bibitem{phenix-bj}
698: S.~S.~Adler {\it et al.} (PHENIX),
699: Phys.\ Rev.\ C 71, 034908 (2005)
700: [Erratum-ibid.\ C 71, 049901 (2005)]
701: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0409015].
702:
703: \bibitem{SU} M.\ C.\ Abreu et al.\ (NA38), \PL B 466 (1999) 408 and
704: \PL B 449 (1999) 128.
705:
706: \bibitem{recom} P.\ Braun-Munzinger and J.\ Stachel, \NP A690
707: (2001) 119;\\
708: R.\ L.\ Thews et al., \PR C 63 (2001) 054905;\\
709: L.\ Grandchamp and R.\ Rapp, \NP A 709 (2002) 415.
710:
711: \bibitem{early}
712: F.\ Karsch and R.\ Petronzio, \PL B 212 (1988) 255;\\
713: S.\ Gavin and M.\ Gyulassy, \PL B 214 (1988) 241;\\
714: J.\ H\"ufner, Y.\ Kurihara and H.\ J.\ Pirner, \PL B 215 (1988) 218.
715:
716: \bibitem{K-N-S} D.\ Kharzeev, M.\ Nardi and H.\ Satz, \PL B 405 (1997) 14
717:
718: \bibitem{T-M}R.\ L.\ Thews and M.\ Mangano, \PR C 73 (2006) 014904;\\
719: R.\ L.\ Thews, hep-ph/0510390.
720:
721: \bibitem{transv} B.\ Alessandro et al.\ (NA50) \NP A 721 (2003) 253;\\
722: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A 749 (2005) 243.
723:
724: \bibitem{Gunji} T.\ Gunji et al.\ (PHENIX), PANIC 2005
725:
726: \bibitem{In-pT} R.\ Arnaldi et al.\ (NA60), \EPJ C 43 (2005) 167;\\
727: R.\ Arnaldi et al.\ (NA60), QM 2005, Budapest
728:
729: \bibitem{Ioffe:2003rd}
730: B.~L.~Ioffe and D.~E.~Kharzeev,
731: Phys.\ Rev.\ C 68, 061902 (2003)
732: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306176].
733:
734: \bibitem{Gupta:1998ut}
735: S.~Gupta,
736: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 58, 034006 (1998)
737: [arXiv:hep-ph/9801240].
738:
739: \end{thebibliography}
740:
741: \end{document}
742:
743: