1: %version 27.12.99 final for WWW
2: \documentstyle[11pt,appb,epsfig]{article} %
3: \begin{document}
4: \title{EQUATION OF STATE OF NUCLEONIC MATTER\footnote{Supported by BMBF and GSI
5: Darmstadt}}
6: \author{W. Cassing\thanks{In collaboration with A. Hombach, U. Mosel and P. K. Sahu} \\ Institut f\"ur
7: Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Giessen \\ D-35392 Giessen,
8: Germany}
9: \date{ }
10: \maketitle
11:
12:
13:
14: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
16: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\aein}{\hspace*{.5cm}}
19: \renewcommand{\d}{\partial}
20: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber\\}
21: \newcommand{\BUU}{Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck}
22: %--------------------------------------------------
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25:
26: The nuclear equation of state (EoS) is investigated by flow
27: phenomena in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, both in transverse
28: and radial direction, in comparison to experimental data from 150
29: A MeV to 11 A GeV. To this aim the collective dynamics of the
30: nucleus-nucleus collision is described within a transport model of
31: the coupled channel RBUU type. There are two factors which
32: dominantly determine the baryon flow at these energies: the
33: momentum dependence of the scalar ($U_S$) and vector potentials
34: ($U_\mu$) for baryons and the resonance/string degrees of freedom
35: for energetic hadron excitations. We fix the explicit momentum
36: dependence of the nucleon-meson couplings by the nucleon optical
37: potential up to 1 GeV and extrapolate to higher energy. When
38: assuming the optical potential to vanish identically for $E_{kin}
39: \geq 3.5$ GeV we simultaneously describe the sideward flow data of
40: the PLASTIC BALL, FOPI, EoS and E877 collaborations, the elliptic
41: flow data of the E895 and E877 collaborations and approximately
42: the rapidity and transverse mass distribution of protons at AGS
43: energies without employing any {\it explicit} assumption on a
44: phase transition in the EoS. However, the gradual change from
45: hadronic to string degrees of freedom with increasing bombarding
46: energy can be viewed as a transition from {\it hadronic} to {\it
47: string} matter, i.e. a dissolution of hadrons at high energy
48: density.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: PACS numbers: 21.65.+f; 25.75.-q; 25.75.Ld
52:
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55: Relativistic heavy-ion collisions (RHIC) provide a unique tool to
56: study nuclear matter at high densities and temperatures,
57: reminiscent of the early big-bang of the universe, but with better
58: statistics and under controlled conditions. These reactions also
59: provide constraints on the interior of neutron stars, where the
60: nuclear equation-of-state (EoS) plays an essential role for the
61: possible existence of an inner quark core or an extended mixed
62: phase of quarks and hadrons \cite{Schertler}. However, since in a
63: RHIC the system initially is far away from thermal and chemical
64: equilibrium, both particle production and collective motion depend
65: on various quantities such as the stiffness of the EoS, the
66: momentum dependence of the interaction or mean-field potentials
67: (MDI), in-medium modifications of the $NN$ cross section
68: $\sigma_{NN}$, the initial momentum distribution of the nucleons
69: \cite{GBdG87,BKL91} as well as the number of hadronic degress of
70: freedom accounted for in the transport simulation \cite{hom98}. It
71: is thus necessary not to focus on a single observable alone but to
72: investigate the dynamical evolution of the RHIC within a single
73: model that is able to describe all relevant single-particle as
74: well as collective quantities.
75:
76: Whereas the experimental and theoretical studies of collective
77: nuclear flow have been restricted to the 1-2 A GeV energy regime
78: in the past \cite{Stoecker,gut89}, more recently both the directed
79: transverse flow (sideward flow) and the flow tensor (elliptic
80: flow) have been measured and reported by the BNL-E877
81: collaboration \cite{her96,rei97,E877,E895} for heavy-ion ($Au+Au$)
82: collisions at AGS energies in the energy range of 1 A GeV $\le
83: E_{inc} \le 11 A$ GeV. In this energy range the directed
84: transverse flow first grows, saturates at around 2 A GeV, and then
85: decreases experimentally with energy showing no minimum as
86: expected from hydrodynamical calculations including a first order
87: phase transition in the EoS \cite{Rischke}. Whether this decrease
88: in directed flow or the change of sign in elliptic flow is
89: indicative of a phase transition \cite{dani98} is a question of
90: high current interest.
91:
92: In this contribution the collective behaviour of nuclear matter in
93: a heavy-ion collision is reviewed in the energy range from 150 A
94: MeV to 11 A GeV for various systems using the transport model
95: \cite{sahu98}. For energies above 1 A GeV it has been,
96: furthermore, complemented by the string dynamics from the HSD
97: transport approach \cite{ehe96} which has been tested extensively
98: for $p+A$ and $A+A$ collisions from SIS to SPS energies
99: \cite{cass99}.
100:
101:
102: \section{The extended RBUU-Model}
103: To describe the heavy-ion collision data at energies starting from
104: the SIS at GSI to the SPS regime at CERN, relativistic transport
105: models have been extensively used
106: \cite{ehe96,Dani,mar94,bas97,li97}. For a general derivation of
107: transport theories the reader is refered to Ref. \cite{Cass} and
108: to Ref. \cite{cass99} for a recent review. Among these transport
109: models the Relativistic Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (RBUU)
110: approach incorporates the relativistic mean-field (RMF) theory,
111: which is applicable also to various nuclear structure problems as
112: well as for neutron star studies \cite{Schertler,SahuNS}. Since it
113: is based on an effective hadronic Lagrangian density it allows to
114: evaluate directly the nuclear EoS at zero and finite nuclear
115: temperature $T$ as well as the scalar and vector mean fields $U_S$
116: and $U_\mu$, that determine the in-medium particle properties, for
117: arbitrary configurations of nucleons in phase space \cite{Cass}.
118: Here we essentially base the studies on the Lagrangian (parameter
119: set NL3) from Ref. \cite{lan91} since this Lagrangian has been
120: applied widely in the analysis of heavy-ion collisions by various
121: groups \cite{sahu98,bli99,soff99}.
122:
123: We recall that the most simple versions of RMF theories assume the
124: scalar and vector fields to be represented by point-like
125: meson-baryon couplings. These couplings lead to a linearly growing
126: Schr{\"o}dinger-equivalent potential in nuclear matter as a
127: function of the kinetic energy $E_{kin}$, which naturally explains
128: the energy dependence of the nucleon optical potential at low
129: energies ($\leq 200$ MeV). However, a simple RMF does not describe
130: the nucleon optical potential at higher energies, where it
131: deviates substantially from a linear function and saturates at
132: $E_{kin} \approx$ 1 GeV \cite{ham90}. Since the energy dependence
133: of sideward flow is controlled in part by the nucleon optical
134: potential, the simple RMF cannot be applied to high-energy
135: heavy-ion collisions. In order to remedy this aspect, the more
136: sophisticated RBUU approaches invoke an explicit momentum
137: dependence of the coupling constant, i.e. a form factor for the
138: meson-baryon couplings \cite{ehe96,cass99,web93}.
139:
140:
141: Further important ingredients at AGS energies are the
142: resonance/string degrees of freedom which are excited during the
143: reaction in high energy baryon-baryon or meson-baryon collisions.
144: While at SIS energies particle production mainly occurs through
145: baryon resonance production and their decay, the string
146: phenomenology is found to work well at SPS energies ($\approx$ 200
147: A GeV) \cite{cass99}. One of the characteristic features of the
148: AGS energy regime is the competition between these two particle
149: production mechanisms which might be separated by some energy
150: scale $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ \cite{sahu99}. Due to this complexity there
151: are various ways to implement elementary cross sections in
152: transport models~\cite{hom98,dani98,cass99,bli99,soff99,nara99}.
153: One of the extremes is to parameterize all possible cross sections
154: directly for multi-pion production, $NN \to NN n\pi \ (n \ge 3)$
155: only through $N, \Delta, \pi$ degrees of freedom; the other
156: extreme is to fully apply string phenomenology in this energy
157: region without employing any resonances. Although it is possible
158: to reproduce the elementary cross sections from $NN$ and $\pi N$
159: collisions and the inclusive final hadron spectra in heavy-ion
160: collisions within these different models, we expect that
161: differences should appear in the dynamical evolution of the
162: system, e.g. in the thermodynamical properties \cite{hom98,nara97}
163: and in collective flow~\cite{sahu99}. For example, if thermal
164: equilibrium is achieved at a given energy density, models with a
165: larger number of degrees of freedom including strings will give
166: smaller temperature and pressure \cite{Frank1}.
167:
168: We have employed here the combination of a resonance production
169: model \cite{effe} and the Lund string model \cite{lund} as
170: incorporated in the Hadron-String-Dynamics (HSD) approach
171: \cite{ehe96,cass99}. In the practical implementation for $NN$ or
172: $MN$ collisions at invariant energies lower (higher) than a
173: threshold energy $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ resonances (strings) are assumed
174: to be excited (see below).
175:
176: \subsection{The optical potential}
177: In this presentation the scalar and vector mean fields $U_S$ and
178: $U_\mu$ are calculated on the basis of the same Lagrangian density
179: as considered in Ref. \cite{sahu98}, which contains nucleon,
180: $\sigma$ and $\omega$ meson fields and nonlinear self-interactions
181: of the scalar field (cf. NL3 parameter set~\cite{lan91}). The
182: scalar and vector form factors at the vertices are taken into
183: account in the form \cite{ehe96}
184: \begin{equation}
185: \label{form}
186: f_s(p)=\frac{\Lambda_s^2-\frac{1}{2}p^2}{\Lambda_s^2+p^2}
187: \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
188: f_v(p)=\frac{\Lambda_v^2-\frac{1}{6}p^2}{\Lambda_v^2+p^2}\ ,
189: \end{equation}
190: where the cut-off parameters $\Lambda_s = 1.0$ GeV and $\Lambda_v
191: = 0.9$ GeV are obtained by fitting the Schr\"odinger equivalent
192: potential,
193: %
194: \begin{equation}
195: \label{pot} U_{sep} (E_{kin}) = U_s + U_0 + \frac{1}{2M}
196: (U_s^2-U_0^2) + \frac{U_0}{M} E_{kin},
197: \end{equation}
198: %
199: to Dirac phenomenology for intermediate energy proton-nucleus
200: scattering \cite{ham90}.
201:
202:
203: \hskip 0.75in \psfig{figure=opt.ps,width=7cm} \vskip 0.15in
204: {\noindent \small {{\bf Fig. 1} The Schr\"odinger equivalent
205: potential (\protect\ref{pot}) at density $\rho_0$ as a function of
206: the nucleon kinetic energy $E_{kin}$. The solid curve (RBUU)
207: results from the momentum-dependent potentials discussed in the
208: text. The data points are from Hama et al. \protect\cite{ham90}.
209: \mbox{} }}
210:
211:
212: The resulting Schr\"odinger equivalent potential (\ref{pot}) is
213: shown in Fig.~1 as a function of the nucleon kinetic energy with
214: respect to the nuclear matter at rest in comparison to the data
215: from Hama et al. \cite{ham90} (open squares). The experimental
216: increase of the Schr\"odinger equivalent potential up to $E_{kin}
217: = 1$ GeV is decribed quite well; then the potential decreases and
218: is set to zero above 3.5 GeV.
219:
220: For the transition rate in the collision term of the transport
221: model we employ in-medium cross sections as in Ref. \cite{effe}
222: that are parameterized in line with the corresponding experimental
223: data for $\sqrt{s} \leq \sqrt{s_{sw}}$. For higher invariant
224: collision energies we adopt the Lund string formation and
225: fragmentation model \cite{lund} as incorporated in the HSD
226: transport approach \cite{ehe96} which has been used extensively
227: for the description of particle production in nucleus-nucleus
228: collisions from SIS to SPS energies \cite{cass99}. In the present
229: relativistic transport approach (RBUU) as in Ref. \cite{sahu98} we
230: ex\-pli\-cite\-ly propagate nucleons and $\Delta$'s as well as all
231: baryon resonances up to a mass of 2 GeV with their isospin degrees
232: of freedom \cite{effe,teis96}. Furthermore, $\pi, \eta$, $\rho$,
233: $\omega$, $K, \bar{K}$ and $\sigma$ mesons are propagated, too,
234: where the $\sigma$ is a short lived effective resonance that
235: describes s-wave $\pi \pi$ scattering. For more details we refer
236: the reader to Refs.~\cite{effe,teis96} concerning the low energy
237: cross sections and to Refs. \cite{ehe96,cass99} with respect to
238: the implementation of the string dynamics.
239:
240: \subsection{Transverse mass spectra of protons}
241: In Fig.~2 we show the dependence of the calculated proton
242: transverse mass spectra in a central collision of Au + Au at 11.6
243: $A$ GeV for b $< 3.5$ fm for $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ = 2.6 GeV (dotted
244: histograms) and 3.5 GeV (solid histograms) in comparison to the
245: experimental data of the E802 collaboration \cite{E802}. A cascade
246: calculation (crosses) is shown additionally for $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ =
247: 3.5 GeV to demonstrate the effect of the mean-field potentials
248: which lead to a reduction of the transverse mass spectra below
249: 0.3 GeV. As expected, the transverse mass spectrum is softer for
250: smaller $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ due to the larger number of degrees of
251: freedom in the string model relative to the resonance model.
252:
253:
254: \hskip 0.95in \psfig{figure=mtdypro.eps,width=6.5cm}\\
255: % \vskip 0.08in
256: {\noindent \small {{\bf Fig. 2:} The transverse mass
257: spectra of protons for $Au+Au$ collisions at $b < 3.5$ fm. The
258: solid line and the dot- dashed line with crosses are results for
259: $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$=3.5 GeV with and without nuclear potentials,
260: respectively. The dotted line RBUU(2.6) is for $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$=2.6
261: GeV. The data points are taken from the E802 collaboration
262: \cite{E802}. \mbox{} }}
263:
264: \vskip 0.1in
265:
266: We note that strings may be regarded as hadronic
267: excitations in the continuum of lifetime $t_F \approx$ 0.8 fm/c
268: (in their rest frame) that take over a significant part of the
269: incident collision energy by their invariant mass. They decay
270: dominantly to light baryons and mesons and only to a low extent to
271: heavy baryon resonances. Thus the number of particles for fixed
272: system time is larger for string excitations than for the
273: resonance model where several hadrons propagate as a single heavy
274: resonance which might be regarded as a cluster of a nucleon + $n$
275: pions. As a consequence the translational energies are suppressed
276: in string excitations and, as a result, the temperature as well as
277: the pressure are smaller when exciting strings.
278:
279: From the above comparison with the experimental transverse mass
280: spectra for protons we find $\sqrt{s_{sw}} \approx$ 3.5 GeV, which
281: implies that binary final baryon channels should dominate up to
282: $\sqrt{s} \approx$ 3.5 GeV which corresponds to a proton
283: laboratory energy of about 4.6 GeV for $pp$ collisions.
284:
285:
286: \section{SIS energies}
287:
288:
289: \subsection{Transverse flow}
290:
291: Within the RBUU model described above we now calculate the
292: transverse flow for various systems and beam energies and analyse
293: the dependence on different quantities. The flow $F$ is defined as
294: the slope of the transverse momentum distribution at midrapidity,
295: \be
296: \label{flow}
297: F={\frac{d\langle p_x\rangle}{dy}}_{|y=y_0}, \ee
298: which is essentially generated by the {\it participating} matter
299: in the 'fireball' \cite{hom98}. The latter finding explains why
300: flow does not clearly distinguish between an EoS with and without
301: momentum-dependent forces. Since the fireball contains the stopped
302: matter, the relative momenta in the fireball (besides the
303: unordered thermal motion) are small. Only when applying additional
304: cuts, e.g. on high transverse momenta \cite{Dani,bas97}, i.e. by
305: selecting particles escaping early from the fireball, or selecting
306: mainly participant or spectator particles by appropriate
307: $\Theta_{cm}$-Cuts \cite{Cro97}, a difference between the
308: momentum-dependent and momentum-independent EoS can be
309: established.
310:
311:
312: The FOPI data on proton flow \cite{her96} indicate a decrease of
313: sidewards flow above 1 A GeV incident energy following the well
314: known logarithmic increase at low energies. Using standard
315: potential parameterizations, both nonrelativistic \cite{GBdG87}
316: and relativistic \cite{sahu98}, this behavior cannot be understood
317: within conventional transport models. In the latter the optical
318: potential stays constant or even increases at high momenta and
319: therefore the repulsion generated from the momentum-dependent
320: forces in a HIC gives rise to a significant contribution to the
321: flow signal. However, since the nucleon-nucleus optical potential
322: is only known up to 1 GeV experimentally \cite{ham90}, it was
323: proposed that this decrease of flow above 1 A GeV might indicate a
324: decrease of the optical potential at high relative momenta or at
325: high baryon density \cite{sahu98}.
326:
327:
328: In Ref. \cite{BKL91} the transverse momentum of the baryons has
329: been disentangled into a collisional part, a mean-field part and a
330: part originating from the Fermi-motion of the particles,
331: \be
332: p_t = p_t^{\rm coll} + p_t^{\rm MF} + p_t^{\rm Fermi} \;, \ee
333: where $p_t^{\rm Fermi}$ practically does not contribute at
334: midrapidity. Thus disentangling the flow signal into a collisional
335: and a potential part, it turns out that $\sim$50 \% of the flow
336: stems from the particle - particle collisions while roughly
337: another 50 \% are generated by the potential repulsion at 1 A GeV.
338: Fig. 3 shows these two contributions for flow for the system
339: $Ni+Ni$ at b=4 fm in comparison to the experimental data using
340: different EoS denoted by 'hard', 'medium' and 'soft'. Both the
341: collisional ''background'' and the potential part rise up to 1 A
342: GeV incident energy and remain constant above, whereas the data
343: indicate a decrease above 1 A GeV. As seen from Fig. 3 the $Ni+Ni$
344: data are described reasonably by both a 'soft' and 'medium' EoS,
345: while a cascade calculation fails substantially.
346:
347: \vskip 0.1in \hskip 0.65in \psfig{figure=trfl_eos.eps,width=8cm}
348: \vskip 0.05in {\noindent \small {{\bf Fig. 3:} Transverse flow for
349: a $Ni+Ni$ collision at b=4 fm as calculated within the RBUU model
350: in cascade mode (dashed lower line) and for equations of state
351: with different compressibilities $K$ in comparison to data from
352: EOS, Plastic Ball and FOPI as compiled by Ref.~\cite{her96}.
353: \mbox{} }} \label{trfl_eos} \vskip 0.1in
354:
355:
356: A note of caution has to be added here: The flow $F$ (\ref{flow})
357: not only depends on the baryon self-energies $U_S$ and $U_\mu$ but
358: also on the number of (resonance) degrees of freedom above about 1
359: A GeV as first pointed out by Hombach et al. \cite{hom98}. This
360: observation will become crucial at AGS energies.
361:
362: \subsection{Radial flow}
363:
364: Radial flow has been discovered \cite{Jeong94}
365: when analyzing the flow pattern of very central events of RHIC.
366: In contrast to transverse flow up to about 70 \% of the
367: incident energy (stored in the hot compressed fireball)
368: is released as ordered radial expansion of the
369: nuclear matter. Thus the hope is to extract information
370: especially on the compressibility of the EoS via the magnitude of the
371: radial flow.
372:
373:
374: Experimentally the radial flow is characterized or fitted in terms of
375: the Siemens-Rasmussen formula
376: \cite{SR79}
377: \be
378: \label{SR} \frac{d^3N}{dEd^2\Omega} \sim p \cdot e^{-\gamma E/T}
379: \left\{\frac{\sinh \alpha}{\alpha} \cdot (\gamma E + T) - T \cdot
380: \cosh\alpha \right\} \ee with $\gamma=(1-\beta^2)^{-1/2}$ and
381: $\alpha=\gamma\beta p/T$, while $\beta$ denotes the flow velocity
382: and $T$ characterizes some temperature. We follow the same
383: strategy in our RBUU calculations and apply a least square fit to
384: the RBUU nucleon spectra using Eq.~(\ref{SR}).
385:
386: \vskip 0.15in \psfig{figure=rad_t.eps,width=5.8cm} \hskip 0.1in
387: \psfig{figure=rad_b.eps,width=5.8cm}
388: \vskip 0.15in {\noindent \small
389: {{\bf Fig. 4:} The temperature (l.h.s.) and radial flow velocity
390: (r.h.s.) for central $Au+Au$ collisions evaluated via
391: Eq.~(\ref{SR}) from the RBUU calculations in comparison to the
392: experimental data from Refs.~\cite{Lisa95,Poggi95,Hong97}. The
393: symbol 's' denotes a soft EoS without momentum dependent forces,
394: 'h' a hard EoS and 'smd', 'mmd' and 'hmd' correspond to a soft,
395: medium and hard momentum dependent EoS, respectively. \mbox{} }}
396: \label{rad} \vskip 0.1in
397:
398: The results of the RBUU calculations for central
399: $Au+Au$ collisions are shown in Fig. 4 as a function of the
400: bombarding energy in comparison to the data from
401: \cite{Lisa95,Poggi95,Hong97}. We find that the 'temperature' $T$
402: is systematically underpredicted in all schemes investigated (soft
403: and hard EoS, with and without momentum dependent forces), and
404: that the flow velocities are not correctly reproduced, being too
405: low at low energy and crossing the experimental data around 800 A
406: MeV. This might indicate a strong binding from the potential which
407: gives not enough repulsion at high densities and overcompensates
408: the collisional pressure from the fireball. However, the nucleon
409: spectra resulting from the RBUU calculation show a strong
410: non-thermal component at low incident energies and are thus in
411: contradiction to the physical picture behind Eq.~(\ref{SR}) which
412: assumes an isentropic expansion of a thermal equilibrated source.
413: In Ref. \cite{hom98_1} the degree of equilibration in a HIC has
414: been investigated as a function of the incident energy and the
415: system mass and it has been found that even the most massive
416: systems like $Au+Au$ do not equilibrate at low energies.
417:
418:
419:
420: \section{AGS energies}
421:
422: \subsection{Sidewards flow}
423: We now turn to the AGS energy regime from 1 -- 11 AGeV. The
424: calculations are performed for the impact parameter $b=6 fm$ for
425: $Au+Au$ systems, since for this impact parameter we get the
426: maximum flow which corresponds to the multiplicity bins $M3$ and
427: $M4$ as defined by the Plastic Ball collaboration \cite{dos87} at
428: BEVALAC/SIS energies. In Fig.~5 (l.h.s.) the transverse flow
429: (\ref{flow}) is displayed in comparison to the data from
430: Refs.~\cite{her96,rei97,EoS}\ for $Au + Au$ systems. The solid
431: line (RBUU with $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ = 3.5 GeV) is obtained with the
432: scalar and vector self energies as discussed above, Eq.
433: (\ref{form}). The dotted line (CASCADE with $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ = 3.5
434: GeV) corresponds to cascade calculations for reference in order to
435: show the effect of the mean field relative to that from
436: collisions. We observe that the solid line (RBUU, cf. Fig.~1) is
437: in good agreement with the flow data \cite{EoS} at all energies;
438: above bombarding energies of 6 A GeV the results are practically
439: indentical to the cascade calculations showing the potential
440: effects to cancel out.
441:
442:
443: We note that the sideward flow shows a maximum around 2 A GeV for
444: $Au+Au$ and decreases continuously at higher beam energy ($\ge$ 2
445: A GeV) without showing any explicit minimum as in Ref.
446: \cite{Rischke}. This is due to the fact that the repulsive force
447: caused by the vector mean field decreases at high beam energies
448: (cf. Fig. 1) such that in the initial phase of the collision there
449: are no longer strong gradients of the potential within the
450: reaction plane. In subsequent collisions, which are important for
451: $Au+Au$ due to the system size, the kinetic energy of the
452: particles relative to the local rest frame is then in a range
453: ($E_{kin} \leq$ 1 GeV) where the Schr\"odinger equivalent
454: potential (at density $\rho_0$) is determined by the experimental
455: data~\cite{ham90}. We thus conclude that for the sideward flow
456: data up to 11 A GeV one needs a considerably strong vector
457: potential at low energy and that one has to reduce the vector mean
458: field at high beam energy in line with Fig. 1. In other words,
459: there is only a weak repulsive force at high relative momenta or
460: high densities.
461:
462: \psfig{figure=flow.ps,width=6cm} \hskip 0.2in
463: \psfig{figure=ellip.eps,width=5.5cm} \vskip 0.15in
464: {\noindent \small {{\bf Fig. 5:} (l.h.s.) The sideward flow $F(y)$
465: as a function of the beam energy per nucleon for $Au+Au$
466: collisions at $b=6$ fm from the RBUU calculations. The solid line
467: results for the parameter set RBUU, the dotted line for a cascade
468: calculation with $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ = 3.5 GeV. The data points are
469: from the FOPI and EoS Collaborations \protect\cite{her96,EoS}.
470: (r.h.s.) The elliptic flow $v_2$ of protons versus the beam energy
471: per nucleon for $Au+Au$ collisions at $b=6$ fm from the RBUU
472: calculations. The solid line results for the parameter set RBUU,
473: the dotted line for a cascade calculation with $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ =
474: 3.5 GeV. The data points are from the EoS Collaboration
475: \cite{E877,E895}. \mbox{} }} \vskip 0.1in
476:
477: Another aspect of the decreasing sideward flow can be related to
478: the dynamical change in the resonance/string degrees of freedom as
479: already discussed above. For instance, for $\sqrt{s_{sw}} = 2.6$
480: GeV the calculated flow turns out to be smaller than the data
481: above 1.5 A GeV and approaches the cascade limit already for
482: $\approx$ 3-4 A GeV. This is due to the fact that in strings the
483: incident energy is stored to a larger extent in their masses and
484: the translational energy is reduced accordingly.
485:
486: \subsection{Elliptic flow}
487: Apart from the in-plane flow of protons the out-of-plane
488: collective flow provides additional information and constraints on
489: the nuclear potentials involved. In this respect the elliptic flow
490: for protons
491: \begin{equation}
492: v_2 = \langle (P_x^2-P_y^2)/(P_x^2+P_y^2) \rangle
493: \end{equation}
494: for $|y/y_{cm}| \leq 0.2 $ is shown in Fig. 5 (r.h.s.) as
495: a function of incident energy for $Au + Au$ collisions at $b$ = 6
496: fm. The solid line (RBUU with $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ = 3.5 GeV) is
497: obtained with the same mean fields as discussed before while the
498: dotted line (CASCADE with $\sqrt{s_{sw}}$ = 3.5 GeV) stands again
499: for the cascade results. The flow parameter $v_2$ changes its sign
500: from negative at low energies ($\le 5 A$ GeV) to positive elliptic
501: flow at high energies ($\ge 5 A$ GeV).
502:
503: This can be understood as follows: At low energies the squeeze-out
504: of nuclear matter leads to a negative elliptic flow since
505: projectile and target spectators distort the collective expansion
506: of the 'fireball' in the reaction plane. At high energies the
507: projectile and target spectators do not hinder anymore the
508: in-plane expansion of the 'fireball' due to their high velocity
509: ($\approx c$); the elliptic flow then is positive. The competition
510: between squeeze-out and in-plane elliptic flow at AGS energies
511: depends on the nature of the nuclear force as pointed out already
512: by Danielewicz et al. \cite{dani98}. We note, however, that in our
513: calculation with the momentum-dependent potential (Fig. 1) we can
514: describe both the sideward as well as elliptic flow data
515: \cite{E877,E895} simultaneously without incorporating any phase
516: transition in the EOS as in Ref. \cite{dani98}.
517:
518: In the cascade calculation the elliptic flow from squeeze-out is
519: weaker due to the lack of a nuclear force which demonstrates the
520: relative role of the momentum-dependent nuclear forces on the
521: $v_2$ observable below bombarding energies of about 5 A GeV.
522:
523:
524: \section{Summary}
525: In this contribution we have explored the dependence of transverse
526: and radial flow signals on various model inputs - that are related
527: to the nuclear EoS - using the coupled channel RBUU model. We find
528: that the mass distribution of the resonances included in the model
529: plays an important role for the description of transverse flow
530: above \mbox{1 A GeV}. For the radial flow we have concentrated on
531: the difference between the results for the flow temperature $T$
532: and flow velocity $\beta$ when using different EoS. However, no
533: sizeable sensitivity to the compressibility of the EoS could be
534: established.
535:
536: On the other hand, we found that in order to reach a consistent
537: understanding of the nucleon optical potential up to 1 GeV, the
538: transverse mass distributions of protons at AGS energies as well
539: as the excitation function of sidewards and elliptic flow
540: \cite{E877,EoS} up to 11 A GeV, the strength of the vector
541: potential has to be reduced in the RBUU model at high relative
542: momenta and/or densities. Otherwise, too much flow is generated in
543: the early stages of the reaction and cannot be reduced at later
544: phases where the Schr\"odinger equivalent potential is
545: experimentally known. This constrains the parameterizations of the
546: explicit momentum dependence of the vector and scalar mean fields
547: $U_\mu$ and $U_S$ at high relative momenta.
548:
549: In addition, we have shown the relative role of resonance and
550: string degrees of freedom at AGS energies. By reducing the number
551: of degrees of freedom via high mass resonances one can build up a
552: higher pressure and/or temperature of the 'fireball' which shows
553: up in the transverse mass spectra of protons as well as in the
554: sidewards flow \cite{sahu99}. A possible transition from resonance
555: to string degrees of freedom is indicated by the RBUU calculations
556: at invariant baryon-baryon collision energies of $\sqrt{s}
557: \approx$ 3.5 GeV which corresponds to a proton laboratory energy
558: of about 4.6 GeV. Due to Fermi motion of the nucleons in $Au + Au$
559: collisions the transition from resonance to string degrees of
560: freedom becomes smooth and starts from about 3 A GeV; at 11 A GeV
561: practically all initial baryon-baryon collisions end up in
562: strings, i.e. hadronic excitations in the continuum that decay to
563: hadrons on a time scale of about 0.8 fm/c in their rest frame.
564: This initial high-density {\it string matter} (up to 10 $\rho_0$
565: at 11 $A$ GeV) should not be interpreted as {\it hadronic matter}
566: since it implies roughly 5 constituent quarks per fm$^3$, which is
567: more than the average quark density in a nucleon.
568:
569: It is interesting to note that at roughly 4 A GeV in central $Au +
570: Au$ collisions the ratio $K^+/\pi^+$ is enhanced experimentally
571: relative to transport calculations \cite{cass98}. One might
572: speculate that a restoration of chiral symmetry could be
573: responsible for the softer collective response as well as enhanced
574: strangeness fraction.
575:
576: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
577:
578: \bibitem{Schertler} K. Schertler {\it et al., Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A
579: 637}, 451 (1998).
580: \bibitem{GBdG87}
581: C. Gale, G. Bertsch, S. Das Gupta, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C35},
582: 1666 (1987).
583: \bibitem{BKL91}
584: B. Bl\"{a}ttel, V. Koch, A. Lang {\it et al., Phys. Rev.} {\bf
585: C43}, 2728 (1991).
586: \bibitem {hom98}
587: A.Hombach, W. Cassing {\it et al., Jour. Phys. Jour.} {\bf A5},
588: 157 (1999).
589: \bibitem{Stoecker} H. St\"ocker, W. Greiner, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 137},
590: 277 (1986).
591: \bibitem {gut89}
592: H. H. Gutbrod {\it et al., Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 52}, 1267 (1989).
593: \bibitem {her96}
594: N. Herrmann {\it et al.,
595: Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 610}, 49c (1996).
596: \bibitem {rei97}
597: W. Reisdorf, H. G. Ritter,
598: {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.} {\bf 47}, 1 (1997).
599: \bibitem {E877}
600: P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 638}, 3c (1998).
601: \bibitem {E895} P. Chung {\it et al., J. Phys. G} {\bf 25}, 255
602: (1999).
603: \bibitem{Rischke} D. Rischke, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 610}, 88c (1996).
604: \bibitem {dani98} P. Danielewicz {\it et al.,
605: Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 81}, 2438 (1998).
606: \bibitem {sahu98}
607: P. K. Sahu, A. Hombach, W. Cassing {\it et al.,
608: Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 640}, 493 (1998).
609: \bibitem {ehe96}
610: W. Ehehalt, W. Cassing, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 602}, 449 (1996);
611: J. Geiss, W. Cassing, C. Greiner, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 644}, 107 (1998).
612: \bibitem{cass99} W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf
613: 308}, 65 (1999).
614: \bibitem{Dani} Q. Pan, P. Danielewicz, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 70},
615: 2062 (1993).
616: \bibitem {mar94}
617: T. Maruyama, W. Cassing, U. Mosel {\it et al., Nucl. Phys.}
618: {\bf A 573}, 653 (1994).
619: \bibitem {bas97}
620: S.A. Bass {\it et al.,
621: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 41}, 255 (1998); {\it J. Phys.}
622: {\bf G 25}, R1 (1999).
623: \bibitem {li97}
624: G. Q. Li, G. E. Brown, C. H. Lee, C. M. Ko,
625: nucl-th/9702023 (1997).
626: \bibitem{Cass} W. Cassing, V. Metag, U. Mosel, K. Niita, {\it Phys.
627: Rep.} {\bf 188}, 363 (1990); W. Cassing, U. Mosel, {\it Prog.
628: Part. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 25}, 235 (1990).
629: \bibitem {SahuNS}
630: S. K. Ghosh, S. C. Phatak, P. K. Sahu, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf A352},
631: 457 (1996).
632: \bibitem {lan91}
633: A. Lang, B. Bl\"attel, W. Cassing {\it et al., Z. Phys.} {\bf A 340},
634: 207 (1991).
635: \bibitem {bli99}
636: B.A. Li {\it et al.,} nucl-th/9904013.
637: \bibitem {soff99}
638: S. Soff {\it et al.,} nucl-th/9903061.
639: \bibitem {ham90}
640: S. Hama {\it et al.,
641: Phys. Rev.} {\bf C 41}, 2737 (1990).
642: \bibitem {web93}
643: K. Weber, B. Bl\"attel, W. Cassing {\it et al.,
644: Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 552}, 571 (1993).
645: \bibitem{sahu99} P. K. Sahu, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, A. Ohnishi,
646: nucl-th/9907002, Nucl. Phys. A, in print.
647: \bibitem {nara99}
648: Y. Nara, N. Otuka, A. Ohnishi {\it
649: et al.,} nucl-th/9904059.
650: \bibitem {nara97}
651: Y. Nara {\it et al.,
652: Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.} {\bf 129}, 33 (1997).
653: \bibitem{Frank1} M. Belkacem, M. Brandstetter, S. A. Bass {\it et al.,
654: Phys. Rev.} {\bf C 58}, 1727 (1998); L. V. Bravina {\it et al.,
655: J. Phys.} {\bf G 25}, 351 (1999).
656: \bibitem{effe} M. Effenberger, E. L. Bratkovskaya, U. Mosel, nucl-th/9903026.
657: \bibitem{lund}
658: B. Anderson, G. Gustafson, Hong Pi, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C 57}, 485 (1993).
659: \bibitem{teis96} S. Teis, W. Cassing, M. Effenberger {\it et al., Z.
660: Phys.} {\bf A 356}, 421 (1997).
661: \bibitem {E802}
662: L. Ahle {\it et al., Phys. Rev.} {\bf C 57}, R466 (1998).
663: \bibitem{Cro97}
664: P. Crochet {\it et al., Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A627}, 522 (1997).
665: \bibitem{Jeong94}
666: S.C. Jeong {\it et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 72}, 3468 (1994).
667: \bibitem{SR79}
668: P.J. Siemens, J.O. Rasmussen, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 42}, 880
669: (1979).
670: \bibitem{Lisa95}
671: M.A. Lisa {\it et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 75}, 2662 (1995).
672: \bibitem{Poggi95}
673: G. Poggi {\it et al., Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A586}, 755 (1995).
674: \bibitem{Hong97} B. Hong {\it et al., Phys. Lett. } {\bf B407},
675: 115 (1997).
676: \bibitem{hom98_1}
677: A. Hombach, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf A5},
678: 77 (1999).
679: \bibitem {dos87}
680: K. G. R. Doss {\it et al.,
681: Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 57}, 302 (1987).
682: \bibitem {EoS}
683: N. N. Ajitanand {\it et al., Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 638}, 451c (1998).
684: \bibitem{cass98} W. Cassing, {\it Acta Phys. Pol.} {\bf B 29}, 3175
685: (1998).
686:
687:
688: \end{thebibliography}
689: %===============================================================
690: \end{document}
691: #!/bin/csh -f
692: # Uuencoded gz-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
693: # For more info (11/95), see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
694: # If you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself: strip
695: # any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figures.uu
696: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
697: # Then say csh figures.uu
698: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
699: # uudecode figures.uu ; gunzip figures.tar.gz ;
700: # tar -xvf figures.tar
701: # On some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use editor to change filename
702: # in "begin" line below to figures.tar-gz , then execute
703: # uudecode figures.uu
704: # gzip -d figures.tar-gz
705: # tar -xvf figures.tar
706: #
707: uudecode $0
708: chmod 644 figures.tar.gz
709: gunzip -c figures.tar.gz | tar -xvf -
710: rm $0 figures.tar.gz
711: exit
712:
713: