1: %final version; 16.12.99

2: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

3: \documentstyle[12pt,fleqn,rotate,epsfig]{article}

4: 

5: \textwidth 16.5cm \textheight 23cm

6: \oddsidemargin 1mm

7: \evensidemargin 1mm

8: %\topmargin=1cm

9: \topmargin -40pt

10: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

11: 

12: \begin{document}

13: 

14: \title{Excitation functions of hadronic observables from SIS to RHIC

15: energies\thanks{supported by BMBF and GSI Darmstadt}  }

16: 

17: \author{W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya and S. Juchem \\[5mm]

18: {\normalsize Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik,}\\

19: {\normalsize Universit\"{a}t Giessen,}

20: {\normalsize 35392 Giessen, Germany}    }

21: 

22: \date{ }

23: \maketitle

24: 

25: \begin{abstract}

26: We calculate excitation functions for various dynamical quantities

27: as well as experimental observables from SIS to RHIC energies

28: within the HSD transport approach which is based on string, quark,

29: diquark ($q, \bar{q}, qq, \bar{q}\bar{q}$) and hadronic degrees of

30: freedom without including any explicit phase transition to a

31: quark-gluon plasma (QGP). It is argued that the failure of this

32: more 'conventional' approach in comparison to experimental data

33: should indicate the presence of a different phase which might be

34: either attributed to space-time regions of vanishing scalar quark

35: condensate ($<q\bar{q}>$ = 0) or to the presence of a QGP phase

36: with strongly interacting partons. We study the $K/\pi$ ratio, the

37: low mass dilepton enhancement in the invariant mass regime from

38: 0.2 -- 1.2 GeV as well as charmonium suppression for central

39: Au~+~Au collisions as a function of the bombarding energy and

40: present predictions for these observables as well as hadron

41: rapiditiy distributions at RHIC energies. Whereas all observables

42: studied within HSD show smooth increasing/decreasing excitation

43: functions, the experimental $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio indicates a maximum

44: at 11 A$\cdot$GeV (or above) which is interpreted as a signature

45: for a chirally restored phase in the course of the reaction.

46: \end{abstract}

47: 

48: \vspace{1cm} \noindent PACS: 24.10.-i; 25.75.-q; 11.30.Rd;

49: 13.60.-r

50: 

51: \noindent Keywords: Nuclear-reaction models and methods;

52: Relativistic heavy-ion collisions; Chiral symmetries; Meson

53: production

54: 

55: 

56: \newpage

57: 

58: 

59: %------------------------------------------------------------------------

60: \section{Introduction}

61: 

62: 

63: The ultimate goal of relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions is to

64: reanalyze the early 'big-bang' under laboratory conditions and to

65: find the 'smoking gun' for a phase transition from the initial

66: quark-gluon plasma (QGP) to a phase characterized by an

67: interacting hadron gas \cite{Harris,Shuryak93,QM99}. Any

68: theoretical approach might describe such a phase transition

69: starting  from the partonic side with strongly interacting quarks

70: and gluons \cite{Geiger3,Bernd} or from the hadronic side by

71: involving hadronic degrees of freedom \cite{Sorge99,Basrev}, i.e.

72: hadrons with proper self-energies or spectral functions at high

73: baryon density or temperature. It remains to be seen which

74: approach will prove to be more successful, economic and

75: transparent.

76: 

77: Nucleus-nucleus collisions with initial energies per nucleon of

78: $\sqrt{s}$ = 200~GeV or $\approx$21.5~A$\cdot$TeV will be

79: available soon at the Relativistic-Heavy-Ion-Collider (RHIC) in

80: Brookhaven. In central collisions of Au~+~Au here energy densities

81: above 5 GeV/fm$^3$ are expected such that the critical energy

82: density for a QGP phase should be overcome in considerable

83: space-time volumes where the relevant degrees of freedom are

84: partons (quarks and gluons). Parton cascade calculations have been

85: used so far \cite{Geiger3,Geiger1,Wang} to estimate the energy

86: densities and particle production yields in violent reactions at

87: $\sqrt{s}$ = 200~GeV, an order of magnitude higher than at SPS

88: energies ($\sqrt{s} \approx$ 20 GeV). Intuitively one expects that

89: the initial nonequilibrium phase of a nucleus-nucleus collision at

90: RHIC energies should be described by parton degrees of freedom

91: whereas hadrons are only formed (by 'condensation') at a later

92: stage of the reaction which might be a couple of fm/c from the

93: initial contact of the heavy ions.  Thus parton cascade

94: calculations -- including transitions rates from perturbative QCD

95: -- should be adequate for all initial reactions involving a large

96: 4-momentum transfer between the consituents since QCD is well

97: tested in its short distance properties. The question, however,

98: remains to which extent the parton calculations can be

99: extrapolated to low $Q^2$ where hadronic scales become important.

100: As a rough estimate one can employ here the average mass of vector

101: mesons, the nucleon and its first excited state, which gives

102: $Q^2_{crit} \approx$ 1 GeV$^2$. On the other hand, using the

103: uncertainty relation this implies time scales of $\Delta t<$ 0.2

104: fm/c = $Q_{crit}^{-1}$ or relative separations of partons $\Delta

105: r <$ 0.2 fm, which are small compared to the hadronic size or

106: average life time of the $\rho, \Delta, etc.$ in free space or the

107: formation time of hadrons $t_F \approx 0.7-0.8$ fm/c as used in

108: the HSD transport approach \cite{Cass99,Ehehalt,Jgeiss}.

109: 

110: Turning the argument around, a nonequilibrium hadronic approach

111: involving a time scale of 0.7-0.8 fm/c cannot tell anything about

112: shorter times because the uncertainty relation does not allow to

113: distinguish states which are separated in mass by less than

114: $\approx$ 300 MeV = $t_F^{-1}$, which is the $N-\Delta$ mass

115: difference.  Thus one faces the problem that neither the parton

116: description nor a nonequilibrium hadronic model should be valid

117: for times 0.2 fm/c $\leq t \leq$ 0.7-0.8 fm/c in individual

118: hadronic reactions, which corresponds to the nonperturbative

119: formation time of the hadronic wavefunction. This regime of the

120: 'soft' QCD physics is presently not well understood and

121: appropriate dynamical models are urgently needed. In the HSD

122: approach these intermediate times are described by color neutral

123: strings, where the leading quarks and 'diquarks' in a baryonic

124: string (or quarks and antiquarks in a mesonic string etc.) are

125: allowed to rescatter again with hadronic cross sections divided by

126: the number of constituent quarks and antiquarks in the hadrons,

127: respectively \cite{Jgeiss}.

128: 

129: Furthermore, the question of chiral symmetry restoration at high

130: baryon density and/or high temperature is of fundamental interest,

131: too \cite{Harris,Shuryak93}. Whereas lattice QCD calculations at

132: zero baryon chemical potential indicate that a restoration of

133: chiral symmetry goes along with the deconfinement phase transition

134: at some critical temperature $T_c$, the situation is less clear

135: for finite baryon density where QCD sum rule studies indicate a

136: linear decrease of the scalar quark condensate $<\bar q q>$ --

137: which is nonvanishing in the vacuum due to a spontaneous breaking

138: of chiral symmetry -- with baryon density $\rho_B$ towards a

139: chiral symmetric phase characterized by $<\bar{q} q>$ = 0. This

140: decrease of the scalar condensate is expected to lead to a change

141: of the hadron properties with density and temperature, i.e. in a

142: chirally restored phase the hadrons might become approximately

143: massless \cite{Brown} or at least vector and axial vector currents

144: should become equal \cite{Kochr,Zahed}; the latter implies that

145: the $\rho$ and $a_1$ spectral functions should become identical.

146: Since the scalar condensate $<q\bar{q}>$ is not a direct

147: observable, its manifestations should be found in different

148: hadronic abundancies and spectra.

149: 

150: Nowadays, our knowledge about the hadron properties at high

151: temperature or baryon density is based on heavy-ion experiments from 

152: BEVALAC/SIS to SPS energies where hot and dense nuclear

153: systems are produced on a timescale of a few fm/c. As mentioned

154: above, the information from ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus

155: collisions at RHIC, i.e. initial $\sqrt{s} = $ 200 GeV per

156: nucleon, will be available soon \cite{QM99}. However, any

157: conclusions about the properties of hadrons in the nuclear

158: environment are based on the comparison of experimental data with

159: nonequilibrium kinetic transport theory

160: \cite{Cass99,Stoecker,Bertsch,Cass90,Koreview}.  As a genuine

161: feature of transport theories there are two essential ingredients:

162: i.e. the {\it baryon (and meson) scalar } and {\it vector

163: self-energies} as well as {\it in-medium elastic} and {\it

164: inelastic cross sections} for all hadrons involved. Whereas in the

165: low-energy regime these 'transport coefficients' can be calculated

166: in the Dirac-Brueckner approach starting from the bare

167: nucleon-nucleon interaction \cite{Bot,Mal,T3} this is no longer

168: possible at high baryon density $(\rho_B \geq 2$-$3 \rho_0)$ and

169: high temperature, since the number of independent hadronic degrees

170: of freedom increases drastically and the interacting hadronic

171: system should enter a phase with $<q\bar{q}> \approx$ 0

172: \cite{Brown,Kochr,GEB,GEB1,Koch} as mentioned before. As a

173: consequence the hadron self-energies or spectral functions in the

174: nuclear medium will change substantially especially close to the

175: chiral phase transition and transport theoretical studies should

176: include the generic properties of QCD in line with nonperturbative

177: computations on the lattice \cite{Lat1,Lat2,Lat3,Lat4}.

178: 

179: In this work we concentrate on excitation functions of hadronic

180: observables from SIS to RHIC energies with the aim to find out

181: optimal experimental conditions to search for 'traditional'

182: phenomena such as strangeness enhancement (Section 3), low mass

183: dilepton enhancement (Section 4) or charmonium suppression in

184: nucleus-nucleus collisions (Section 5).  Our studies are performed

185: within the HSD transport approach that has been described in Refs.

186: \cite{Ehehalt,Jgeiss} and been tested for $p+p$, $p+A$ and $A+A$

187: collisions from the SIS to SPS energy regime \cite{Cass99}. Actual

188: predictions for hadron rapidity spectra and $J/\Psi$ suppression

189: will be presented in Section 6 while Section 7 concludes the study

190: with a summary.

191: 

192: \section{Theoretical considerations}

193: 

194: In this Section we briefly recall the ingredients of the covariant

195: transport theory, that has been denoted as {\bf H}adron-{\bf

196: S}tring-{\bf D}ynamics (HSD) \cite{Ehehalt}, which formally can be

197: written as a coupled set of transport equations for the

198: phase-space distributions $f_h (x,p)$ of hadron $h$

199: \cite{Ehehalt,Cass,Weber1}, i.e.

200: \begin{eqnarray}

201: && \left\{ \left( \Pi_\mu-\Pi_\nu\partial_\mu^p U_h^\nu

202:    - M_h^*\partial^p_\mu U_h^S \right)\partial_x^\mu

203:    + \left( \Pi_\nu \partial^x_\mu U^\nu_h+

204:    M^*_h \partial^x_\mu U^S_h\right) \partial^\mu_p \right\}

205:    f_h(x,p)\nonumber\\

206: && = \sum_{h_2 h_3 h_4\ldots} \int d2 d3 d4 \ldots

207:    [G^{\dagger}G]_{12\rightarrow 34\ldots}

208:    \delta^4_{\Gamma}(\Pi +\Pi_2-\Pi_3-\Pi_4 \ldots )  \nonumber\\

209: && \times \left\{ f_{h_3}(x,p_3)f_{h_4}(x,p_4)\bar{f}_h(x,p)

210:    \bar{f}_{h_2}(x,p_2)\right.  \nonumber\\

211: && -\left. f_h(x,p)f_{h_2}(x,p_2)\bar{f}_{h_3}(x,p_3)

212:    \bar{f}_{h_4}(x,p_4) \right\} \ldots\ \ .

213: \label{Ehg24} \end{eqnarray} In Eq.~(\ref{Ehg24}) $U_h^S(x,p)$ and

214: $U_h^\mu(x,p)$ denote the real part of the scalar and vector

215: hadron self-energies, respectively, while $[G^+G]_{12\rightarrow

216: 34\ldots} \delta^4_{\Gamma} (\Pi +\Pi_2-\Pi_3-\Pi_4\ldots )$ is

217: the 'transition rate' for the process $1+2\rightarrow 3+4+\ldots$

218: which is taken to be on-shell in the semiclassical limit adopted.

219: The hadron quasi-particle properties in (\ref{Ehg24}) are defined

220: via the mass-shell constraint \cite{Weber1},

221: \begin{equation}

222: \delta (\Pi_\mu\Pi^\mu-M_h^{*2} ) \ \ ,

223: \label{Ehg25}\end{equation} with effective masses and momenta (for

224: a hadron of bare mass $M_h$ and momentum $p^\mu$) given by

225: \begin{eqnarray}

226: M_h^* (x,p)&=&M_h + U_h^{{S}}(x,p) \nonumber \\

227: \Pi^\mu (x,p)&=&p^\mu-U^\mu_h (x,p)\ \ ,

228: \label{Ehg26}\end{eqnarray}

229: while the phase-space factors

230: \begin{equation}

231: \bar{f}_h (x,p)=1 \pm f_h (x,p) \label{Ehg26a}\end{equation} are

232: responsible for fermion Pauli-blocking or Bose enhancement,

233: respectively, depending on the type of hadron in the final/initial

234: channel. The dots in Eq.~(\ref{Ehg24}) stand for further

235: contributions to the collision term with more than two hadrons in

236: the final/initial channels. The transport approach (\ref{Ehg24})

237: is fully specified by $U_h^S(x,p)$ and $U_h^\mu(x,p)$ $(\mu

238: =0,1,2,3)$, which determine the mean-field propagation of the

239: hadrons, and by the transition rates $G^\dagger G\ \delta^4

240: (\ldots )$ in the collision term, that describe the scattering and

241: hadron production/absorption rates.

242: 

243: In Ref. \cite{Ehehalt} the scalar and vector mean-fields $U_h^S$

244: and $U^\mu_h$ have been determined in the mean-field limit from an

245: effective hadronic Lagrangian density ${\cal L}_H$ that has been

246: fitted to the equation of state of nucleonic matter as resulting from 

247: the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model. Without going through the

248: arguments again we show in Fig. \ref{Fig1} the nucleon scalar

249: ($U_S$) and negative vector potential ($-U_0$) as a function of

250: the nuclear density $\rho$ and relative momentum ${\bf p}$ of the

251: nucleon with respect to the nuclear matter rest frame. Whereas the

252: vector potential increases practically linearly with density (at

253: low momentum ${\bf p}$) the scalar potential saturates with

254: density such that the nucleon effective mass $M^* = M_0+U_S$

255: almost drops to zero for $\rho \geq$ 0.6 fm$^{-3}$. Both

256: potentials decrease rather fast in magnitude with momentum ${\bf

257: p}$ and practically vanish above a few GeV/c.

258: 

259: In Fig. \ref{Fig2} the real part of the potential

260: \begin{eqnarray}

261: U_{SEP} &=&  U_0(\rho_0,{\bf p}) + \sqrt{{\bf p}^2 + (M_N +

262: U_S)^2} - \sqrt{{\bf p}^2 + M_N^2} \label{Ehg23}\end{eqnarray} is

263: shown again as a function of $\rho$ and ${\bf p}$. Whereas we see

264: a net attraction for momenta $|{\bf p}| \leq$ 0.5~GeV/c up to

265: densities of $\approx$ 0.3~fm$^{-3}$, the net potential becomes

266: repulsive for higher momenta, reaches a maximum repulsion at

267: $|{\bf p}| \approx$ 1 GeV/c and then drops again with $|{\bf p}|$.

268: We mention that at density $\rho_0$ the potential $U_{SEP}$

269: compares well with the potential from the data analysis of Hama et

270: al. \cite{Hama} as well as Dirac-Brueckner computations from

271: \cite{Mal} up to a kinetic energy $E_{kin}$ of 1 GeV

272: \cite{Ehehalt}. The formula (\ref{Ehg23}) reduces to the familiar

273: expression for the Schroedinger equivalent potential (Eq. (3.16)

274: of Ref. \cite{Cass99}) in the low density limit.

275: 

276: 

277: In our transport calculations we include nucleons, $\Delta$'s,

278: N$^*$(1440), N$^*$(1535), $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma^*$

279: hyperons, $\Xi$'s and $\Omega$'s  as well as their antiparticles.

280: In a first approximation we assume here that all baryons (made out

281: of light $(u,d)$ quarks) have the same scalar and vector

282: self-energies as the nucleons while the hyperons pick up a factor

283: 2/3 according to the light quark content and $\Xi$'s a factor of

284: 1/3, respectively.

285: 

286: In the HSD approach the high energy inelastic hadron-hadron

287: collisions are described by the FRITIOF model \cite{LUND}, where

288: two incoming hadrons emerge the reaction as two excited color

289: singlet states, i.e. 'strings'. According to the Lund model

290: \cite{LUND} a string is characterized by the leading constituent

291: quarks of the incoming hadron and a tube of color flux is supposed

292: to be formed connecting the rapidly receding string-ends. In the

293: HSD approach baryonic ($qq-q$) and mesonic ($q-\bar{q}$) strings

294: are considered with different flavors ($q = u,d,s$). In the

295: uniform color field of the strings virtual $q\bar{q}$ or

296: $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ pairs are produced causing the tube to fission

297: and thus to create mesons or baryon-antibaryon pairs. The

298: production probability $P$ of massive $s\bar{s}$ or

299: $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ pairs is suppressed in comparison to light

300: flavor production ($u\bar{u}$, $d\bar{d}$) according to a

301: Schwinger-like formula \cite{Schwinger}

302: \begin{eqnarray}

303: {P(s\bar{s}) \over P(u\bar{u})} = \gamma_s = \exp\left(-\pi

304: {m_s^2-m_q^2\over 2\kappa}, \right)

305: \label{schwinger}

306: \end{eqnarray}

307: with $\kappa\approx 1$~GeV/fm denoting the string tension. Thus in

308: the Lund string picture the production of strangeness and

309: baryon-antibaryon pairs is controlled by the constituent quark and

310: diquark masses. Inserting the constituent quark masses $m_u=0.3$~GeV

311: and $m_s=0.5$ GeV a value of $\gamma_s \approx 0.3$ is

312: obtained. While the strangeness production in proton-proton

313: collisions at SPS energies is reasonably well reproduced with this

314: value, the strangeness yield for p~+~Be collisions at AGS energies

315: is underestimated by roughly 30\% (cf. \cite{Jgeiss}). For that

316: reason the relative factors used in the HSD model are

317: \cite{Jgeiss}

318: \begin{eqnarray}

319: u:d:s:uu = \left\{

320: \begin{array}{ll}

321: 1:1:0.3:0.07 &, \mbox{at SPS to RHIC energies} \\ 1:1:0.4:0.07 &,

322: \mbox{at AGS energies} ,

323: \end{array}

324: \right. \label{HSD-supp}

325: \end{eqnarray}

326: with a linear transition of the strangeness suppression factor

327: $\gamma_s = s:u$ as

328: a function of $\sqrt{s}$ in between.

329: 

330: Additionally a fragmentation function $f(x,m_t)$ has to be

331: specified, which is the probability distribution for hadrons with

332: transverse mass $m_t$ to acquire the energy-momentum fraction $x$ from 

333: the fragmenting string,

334: \begin{eqnarray}

335: f(x,m_t)\approx {1 \over x} (1-x)^a \exp\left(-bm_t^2/x  \right),

336: \end{eqnarray}

337: with $a=0.23$ and $b=0.34$~GeV$^{-2}$ \cite{Jgeiss}.

338: 

339: We recall that the LUND model \cite{LUND} includes partonic

340: diffractive scattering and mini-jet production as well

341: \cite{PYTHIA}. The latter phenomena are not important at SPS

342: energies and below, however, become appreciable at RHIC energies.

343: In this respect the HSD approach dynamically also includes the

344: hard partonic processes as far as quarks and antiquarks are

345: involved. However, it does not employ hard gluon-gluon processes

346: beyond the level of 'string phenomenology'. This has to be kept in

347: mind with respect to the predictive power of the model at RHIC

348: energies and beyond.

349: 

350: The medium modifications due to the hadron self-energies,

351: furthermore, require to introduce some conserving approximations

352: in the collision terms in line with the modified quasi-particle

353: properties. Since these in-medium modifications -- related to 'low

354: momentum physics' --  are not of primary interest in this study we

355: discard an explicit discussion here and refer the reader to Ref.

356: \cite{Ehehalt}.

357: 

358: 

359: 

360: \subsection{The scalar condensate}

361: 

362: The scalar quark condensate $<q\bar{q}>$ is viewed as an order

363: parameter for the restoration of chiral symmetry at high baryon

364: density and temperature. A model independent relation for the

365: scalar quark condensate at finite (but small) baryon density and

366: temperature has been given by Drukarev and Levin \cite{Drukarev},

367: i.e

368: \begin{equation}

369: \label{condens} \frac{<q\bar{q}>}{<q\bar{q}>_V} = 1 -

370: \frac{\rho_S}{f_\pi^2 m_\pi^2} \left[\Sigma_{\pi} + m \frac{d}{dm}

371: \left(\frac{E(\rho)}{A}\right) \right],

372: \end{equation}

373: where $<q\bar{q}>_V$ denotes the vacuum condensate, $\Sigma_\pi \approx$

374: 45 MeV is the pion-nucleon $\Sigma$-term, $f_\pi$ and $m_\pi$ the

375: pion decay constant and pion mass, respectively, while $E(\rho)/A$ is

376: the binding energy per nucleon. Since for low

377: densities the scalar density $\rho_S$ in (\ref{condens}) may be

378: replaced by the baryon density $\rho_B$, the change in the scalar

379: quark condensate starts linearly with $\rho_B$ and is reduced by a

380: factor 1/3 at saturation density $\rho_0$. A simple linear

381: extrapolation then would indicate that at $\rho_B \approx 3

382: \rho_0$ a restoration of chiral symmetry might be achieved in

383: heavy-ion collisions.

384: 

385: A reasonable estimate for the scalar condensate in dynamical

386: calculations has been suggested by Friman et al. \cite{Toneev98},

387: \begin{equation}

388: \frac{<q\bar{q}>}{<q\bar{q}>_V} = 1 - \frac{\Sigma_\pi}{f_\pi^2

389: m_\pi^2}\rho_S - \sum\limits_h{\sigma_h \rho_S^h \over f_\pi^2

390: m_\pi^2}, \label{condens2} \end{equation}

391: where $\sigma_h$ denotes

392: the $\sigma$-commutator of the relevant mesons $h$. For pions and

393: mesons made out of light quarks and antiquarks we use $\sigma_h =

394: m_\pi/2$ whereas for mesons with a strange (antistrange) quark we

395: adopt $\sigma_h = m_\pi/4$ according to the light quark content.

396: Within the same spirit the $\Sigma$-term for hyperons is taken as

397: 2/3 $\Sigma_{\pi} \approx$ 30 MeV while for $\Xi$'s we use 1/3

398: $\Sigma_{\pi} \approx$ 15 MeV.

399: 

400: The scalar density of mesons (of type $h$) is given by

401: \begin{equation}

402: \label{mesons} \rho_S^h = \frac{(2s+1) (2t+1)}{(2\pi)^3} \int d^3

403: {\bf p} \frac{m_h}{\sqrt{{\bf p}^2 + m_h^2}} f_h({\bf r},{\bf

404: p};t),

405: \end{equation}

406: with $f_h$ denoting the meson phase-space distribution

407: of species $h$. In (\ref{mesons}) $s,t$ denote the spin and

408: isospin quantum numbers, respectively. We note that the scalar

409: density of baryons is calculated in line with (\ref{mesons}) by

410: replacing the mass and momentum by the effective quantities in

411: (\ref{Ehg26}).

412: 

413: The actual numerical result for the space-time dependence of the

414: scalar condensate (\ref{condens2}) is shown in Figs. \ref{Fig3}

415: and \ref{Fig4} for central Au~+~Au collisions at 6~A$\cdot$GeV and

416: 20~A$\cdot$GeV, respectively. Here the condensate is divided by

417: the vacuum condensate $<q\bar{q}>_V$ such that the nonperturbative

418: vacuum is characterized by a value of 1. Furthermore, the

419: $z$-direction has been stretched by the Lorentz-factors

420: $\gamma_{cm}$ to compensate for Lorentz contraction, while

421: negative numerical values for the condensate have been suppressed.

422: According to (\ref{condens}), (\ref{condens2}) the scalar

423: condensate is reduced inside the approaching nuclei by about 35\%;

424: this reduction becomes more pronounced when the nuclei achieve

425: full overlap. As seen from Fig. \ref{Fig3} already at 6

426: A$\cdot$GeV there is a substantial space-time region of vanishing

427: scalar condensate for 6~fm/c~$\leq t \leq 13$~fm/c, where the

428: conventional hadronic picture is not expected to hold anymore. The

429: space-time volume of vanishing quark condensate slightly increases

430: for 20 A$\cdot$GeV (Fig. \ref{Fig4}), however, the increase is

431: only moderate and resembles very much the situation for the

432: space-time integral of high density baryon matter (cf. Fig. 1 in

433: Ref. \cite{brat97}).

434: 

435: We mention that at higher bombarding energies the 4-volume ($x =

436: (t,{\bf r})$)

437: \begin{eqnarray}

438: V(\alpha)= \int d^3{\bf r} dt \ \Theta(\alpha -

439: \frac{<q\bar{q}>_x}{<q\bar{q}>_V}) , \label{volume} \end{eqnarray}

440: that counts the fraction of the scalar condensate below the value

441: of $\alpha$ (0 $\leq \alpha \leq$ 0.3) is essentially determined

442: by the pion density whereas below about 20 A$\cdot$GeV the

443: dominant contribution stems from the baryons (cf. also Ref.

444: \cite{Toneev98}). Since the pion density can be considered as a

445: measure of the vacuum 'temperature', a chiral order transition

446: below about 20 A$\cdot$GeV is dominated by the baryon density

447: while especially at SPS or even RHIC energies a chiral order

448: transition is due to 'temperature'.

449: 

450: The question now arises, if there are proper experimental

451: observables that allow to trace down such type of phase transition

452: (or cross over). When gating on central collisions of Au~+~Au (or

453: Pb~+~Pb) such phenomena should show up in their excitation

454: functions. We note that in a pure hadronic transport approach we

455: expect a smooth behaviour of practically all observables with

456: bombarding energy due to an increase of thermal excitation energy.

457: This is not so obvious for the HSD approach where a gradual

458: transition from hadronic excitations to strings and quark (or

459: diquark) degrees of freedom is involved. In fact, in Ref.

460: \cite{Sahu99} it has been claimed that the excitation function of

461: transverse and elliptic proton flow together with the transverse

462: $p_t$ spectra of protons suggest a transition from {\it hadron} to

463: {\it string} matter at about 5 A$\cdot$GeV. Here, however, we

464: concentrate on meson abundancies and spectra and refer the reader

465: to Ref. \cite{Sahu99} for the collective dynamical aspects and to

466: Ref. \cite{brat99c} for the thermal properties of the theory that

467: involves a limiting ('Hagedorn') temperature of $T_S \approx$ 150

468: MeV due to the continuum string excitations.

469: 

470: 

471: \section{Meson production}

472: 

473: To present a general overview on the meson abundancies in

474: nucleus-nucleus collisions we show in Fig. \ref{Fig5} the meson

475: multiplicities for central collisions of Au~+~Au from SIS to RHIC

476: energies.  All multiplicities for $\pi^+, \eta, K^+, K^-, \phi$ as

477: well as $J/\Psi$ mesons show a monotonic increase with bombarding

478: energy which is only very steep at 'subthreshold' energies, i.e.

479: at bombarding energies per nucleon below the threshold in free

480: space for $NN$ collisions. At higher bombarding energies the meson

481: abundancies group according to their quark content, i.e. the

482: multiplicities are reduced (relative to $\pi^+$) by about a factor

483: of 4--5 for a strange quark, a factor of $\approx$ 50 for

484: $s\bar{s} \equiv \phi$ and a factor of $\approx 2\cdot 10^{5}$ for

485: $c\bar{c} \equiv J/\Psi$. We mention that in these calculations

486: the meson rescattering and reabsorption processes have been taken

487: into account; this reduces the $J/\Psi$ cross section at RHIC

488: energies by about a factor of 10 (cf. Section 5).  At

489: 'subthreshold' energies the $\phi$ multiplicity turns out to be

490: almost the same as the antikaon multiplicity, but then rises less

491: steeply with bombarding energy. Apart from the $\phi$ excitation

492: function -- that still has to be controlled experimentally -- we

493: thus find no pronounced change in the shape of the meson

494: abundancies up to RHIC energies where data are expected to come up

495: soon.

496: 

497: We recall that our investigations on strangeness production up to

498: 2~A$\cdot$GeV \cite{Cass97a,Brat97b} have given some evidence for

499: attractive antikaon potentials in the medium while for kaons only

500: a very moderate repulsive potential was suggested \cite{Brat97b};

501: $\eta$ mesons apparently do not show sensible in-medium effects

502: according to the studies in Ref. \cite{Brat98a,Brat98b} in

503: comparison to the available experimental spectra. At AGS and SPS

504: energies, on the other hand, the potential effects on kaon and

505: antikaon abundancies have been found to be only very low

506: \cite{Cass99} such that meson potentials have been discarded in

507: Fig. \ref{Fig5} for the overview.

508: 

509: Since the meson abundancies show no sudden change in the

510: excitation function, we turn to particle ratios. Here strangeness

511: enhancement has been suggested for more than 2 decades to possibly

512: qualify as a sensible probe for a QGP phase (cf. Ref. \cite{SQM98}

513: for a recent overview). Here we examine the $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio at

514: midrapidity in central Au~+~Au (or Pb~+~Pb) collisions where

515: experimental data are now available from SIS to SPS energies

516: \cite{SQM98,E866,Alard}. We recall that detailed comparisons of

517: pion and kaon rapidity distributions and transverse momentum

518: spectra to the available data have been presented in Refs.

519: \cite{Cass99,Jgeiss} such that we directly can continue with the

520: corresponding excitation function.

521: 

522: In order to discuss the strangeness production over the complete

523: energy range from SIS to RHIC energies we show in Fig. \ref{Fig6}

524: the calculated $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio at midrapidity (-0.5 $\leq y_{cm}

525: \leq$ 0.5) for central Au~+~Au collisions in comparison to the

526: experimental data. This ratio experimentally is substantially

527: lower at SPS energies ($\approx 13.5\%$) compared to AGS energies

528: ($\approx 19\%$). At SPS energies this ratio is only enhanced by a

529: factor 1.75 for central Pb~+~Pb collisions relative to p~+~p

530: reactions and has to be compared to the factor $\approx$ 3 at AGS.

531: Such a decrease of the scaled kaon yield from AGS to SPS energies

532: is not described by the HSD transport model (without kaon

533: self-energies) which shows a monotonic increase with bombarding

534: energy similar to $pp$ reactions (open circles). Furthermore, the

535: higher temperatures and particle densities at SPS energies tend to

536: enhance the $K^+/\pi^+$ yield closer to its thermal equilibrium

537: value of $\approx 20-25\%$ \cite{BM} at chemical freezout and

538: temperatures of $T\approx 150$ MeV.

539: 

540: Our findings have to be compared to results obtained by other

541: microscopic approaches. Here only the RQMD model very recently

542: \cite{Wang99} provides a study partly comparable to that of Ref.

543: \cite{Jgeiss}, however, excluding p~+~A reactions to control the

544: amount of $K^+$ production by rescattering. Whereas kaon

545: production in p~+~p reactions is comparable to our results in

546: \cite{Jgeiss} (input of the transport model), the RQMD model

547: yields a higher $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio in Au~+~Au, Pb~+~Pb collisions

548: at all energies due to a higher kaon yield from rescattering. The

549: latter can be attributed to 'high mass strange resonances' that

550: have been incorporated to describe the low energy kaon production

551: via resonance production and decay \cite{Sorge96} (s-channels).

552: Since these 'high mass resonances' can be repopulated in

553: resonance-resonance scattering, a rather high $\sqrt{s}$ is

554: concentrated in a single degree of freedom for a short time. Such

555: 'hot spots' then lead to a higher $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio in A~+~A

556: reactions especially at AGS energies. While the $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio

557: can be reasonably described at AGS energies in Au~+~Au reactions,

558: this ratio is overestimated significantly at SPS energies (cf.

559: Fig. 4 of Ref.  \cite{Wang99}). Thus also the RQMD model does not

560: describe the relative decrease of the $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio from 11

561: A$\cdot$GeV to 160 A$\cdot$GeV. The results of the RQMD

562: calculations at SIS energies are not known to the authors.

563: 

564: 

565: 

566: \section{Dilepton production}

567: 

568: Electromagnetic decays to virtual photons ($e^+ e^-$ or $\mu^+ \mu^-$

569: pairs) have been suggested long ago to serve as a possible signature

570: for a phase transition to the QGP

571: \cite{Shuryak,Kaj,Ruuskanen,Cleym,Uheinz} or to be an ideal probe for

572: vector meson spectroscopy in the nuclear medium. As pointed out in

573: Refs. \cite{Zahed,Kling} the isovector current-current correlation

574: function is proportional to the imaginary part of the $\rho$-meson

575: propagator and also to the dilepton invariant mass spectra.  Dileptons

576: are particularly well suited for an investigation of the violent phases

577: of a high-energy heavy-ion collision because they can leave the

578: reaction volume essentially undistorted by final-state interactions.

579: Indeed, the dilepton studies in heavy-ion collisions  by the DLS

580: Collaboration at the BEVALAC \cite{ro88} and by the

581: CERES~\cite{CERES,Ullrich}, HELIOS~\cite{HELIOS,HELI2},

582: NA38~\cite{NA38} and NA50 Collaborations~\cite{NA50} at SPS energies

583: have found a vivid interest in the nuclear physics community.

584: 

585: 

586: We recall that the question of chiral symmetry restoration does

587: not necessarily imply that vector meson masses have to drop with

588: baryon density or temperature \cite{KoKoch}. Actually, chiral

589: symmetry restoration (ChSR) only demands that the isovector

590: current-current correlation function and the axial vector

591: current-current correlation function (dominated by the chiral

592: partner of the $\rho$, the $a_1$-meson) should become identical at

593: high $\rho_B$ or temperature $T$, respectively, because there

594: should be no more differences between left- and right-handed

595: particles or equivalently vector and axial vector currents

596: \cite{Zahed,KoKoch}.  Thus also a strong broadening of the $\rho$-

597: as well as the $a_1$-spectral function and their mixing in the

598: medium \cite{Rapp,friman,RappNPA,Rapp99} can be considered as a

599: signature for ChSR which, however, is not easy to detect

600: experimentally.

601: 

602: In Ref. \cite{Cass99} we have demonstrated that the present

603: experimental data on the low mass dilepton enhancement at SPS

604: energies can be described equally well within the 'dropping

605: $\rho$-mass' scenario as well as within the 'melting' $\rho$

606: picture, which implies a large spreading in mass of the $\rho$

607: spectral function due to its couplings to baryons and/or mesons.

608: The situation at SIS/BEVALAC energies is more 'puzzling' since

609: here the low mass dilepton enhancement is neither described in the

610: dynamical spectral function approach \cite{Brat98b} nor in the

611: 'dropping mass' scheme \cite{Brat98c}, though the $pp$ dilepton

612: data from the DLS collaboration \cite{DLSpp} are reproduced within

613: the known sources rather well from 1 -- 5 GeV bombarding energy

614: \cite{Brat99a,Ernst}. In short, the dynamical origin of the low

615: mass dilepton enhancement is not yet understood.

616: 

617: Here we propose to investigate the excitation function of low mass

618: dilepton enhancement in central Au~+~Au collisions. As discussed in

619: Refs. \cite{Cass99,Rapp99} this excess of dileptons is most probably

620: due to the isovector ($\rho$) channel, i.e. the imaginary part of the

621: isovector current-current correlation function which, however, mixes

622: with the axial vector current-current correlation function at finite

623: temperature and baryon density \cite{Zahed,Rapp99}.

624: 

625: Since the $\rho$-meson spectral function is of primary interest,

626: it is important to have some information about the actual baryon

627: densities that the $\rho$-meson experiences during its propagation

628: and decay in central Au~+~Au collisions. This information is

629: displayed in Fig. \ref{Fig7} -- as resulting from the HSD

630: transport calculation -- for central reactions at 2, 5, 10, 20, 40

631: and 160 A$\cdot$GeV. Here the meson-baryon production channels and

632: baryon-baryon production channels are summed up by the solid lines

633: and denoted as ($\pi B \rightarrow \rho, BB \rightarrow \rho$).

634: The meson-meson production channels such as $\pi \pi \rightarrow

635: \rho, a_1 \rightarrow \pi \rho \ $ etc. are summed up in the

636: dashed histograms indicated as $\pi \pi \rightarrow \rho$

637: according to the dominating channel. We find that especially the

638: initial $BB$ production channels produce $\rho$-mesons at very

639: high densities close to 2 $\rho_0 \gamma_{cm}$ where $\gamma_{cm}$

640: is the Lorentz factor in the cms. However, these production

641: channels are much less abundant than the meson-meson channels

642: which extend over a larger time span (for the heavy system

643: Au~+~Au) and essentially occur at much lower baryon density,

644: respectively. This effect becomes even more pronounced with

645: increasing bombarding energy, i.e. 40 -- 160 A$\cdot$GeV, where

646: most of the $\rho$-mesons are produced at baryon densities below 2

647: $\rho_0$. Since in Fig. \ref{Fig7} the relative abundancy of

648: $\rho$-mesons is displayed as a function of the baryon density at

649: the production (formation) point, the time averaged value of the

650: density is even lower due to a fast expansion of the hadronic

651: fireball. Thus to probe on average high baryon densities by

652: $\rho$-mesons one should step down in energy to 2 -- 5 A$\cdot$GeV

653: in order to optimize effects due to the coupling to baryons.

654: 

655: A general overview of dilepton mass spectra in central ($b$=2 fm)

656: Au~+~Au collisions from 2 A$\cdot$GeV to 21.5 A$\cdot$TeV is

657: presented in Fig.  \ref{Fig8}, where the upper part corresponds to

658: the case of vacuum spectral functions for all mesons (cf. Fig.

659: 8.20 of Ref. \cite{Cass99}), while the lower part is calculated by

660: employing the $\rho$ spectral function from Rapp et al.

661: \cite{RappNPA,CasRap}. Whereas for the free meson spectral

662: function one observes essentially an increase of the dilepton

663: production channels with bombarding energy without any substantial

664: change in the spectral shape (except for an increasing peak from

665: the $\phi$; cf. Fig. 5), the in-medium calculations yield almost

666: exponential mass spectra above $M \geq$ 0.4 GeV with small peaks from 

667: vacuum $\omega$ and $\phi$ decays at $M \approx 0.78$ GeV and 1.02~GeV.

668: 

669: We mention that for the vacuum spectral functions (upper part of

670: Fig. 8) the shape of the dilepton spectra (for $M_{e^+e^-} \geq$

671: 0.15 GeV) is due to the superposition of $\eta, \eta', \omega$ and

672: $a_1$ Dalitz decays and direct vector meson decays ($\rho, \omega,

673: \phi$), where all mesons may also be produced in meson-baryon and

674: meson-meson collisions. The increase in dilepton yield (for

675: $M_{e^+e^-} \geq $ 0.15 GeV) with bombarding energy thus is due to

676: an enhanced production of $\eta, \eta', \rho, \omega, \phi, a_1$

677: mesons. Their relative abundance from SIS to RHIC energies does

678: not scale directly with the charged particle multiplicity which is

679: dominated by protons, $\pi^{\pm}$ and $K^{\pm}$ (cf. Fig. 5).

680: However, above about 50 -- 100 A$\cdot$GeV the meson ratios do not

681: change very much (cf. Figs. 5,6) while the charged particle

682: multiplicity becomes dominated by $\pi^{\pm}$ and $K^{\pm}$. Thus from 

683: SPS to RHIC energies the low mass dilepton yield should

684: approximately be proportional to the charged particle

685: multiplicity, too.

686: 

687: The relative change in the dilepton spectra is quantitatively displayed

688: in Fig. \ref{Fig9} -- again for central ($b$= 2 fm) collisions of

689: Au~+~Au -- for the case of free meson spectral functions (solid lines) and

690: the spectral function from Rapp et al.  \cite{RappNPA,CasRap} (dashed

691: lines). In line with the discussion above the most prominent spectral

692: changes are expected at rather low bombarding energies from

693: 2--10~A$\cdot$GeV, where the enhancement in the invariant mass range from 

694: 0.3--0.6~GeV is about a factor of 4. Note that the $\omega$ and

695: $\phi$ vacuum decays show clear peaks on top of the 'exponential'

696: continuum, which will have to be identified experimentally. We mention

697: that in all our calculations we have incorporated an experimental

698: ('optimistic') mass resolution of $\Delta M$ = 10 MeV for the dilepton

699: invariant mass.

700: 

701: \section{Charmonium production and suppression}

702: 

703: Matsui and Satz \cite{matsui} have proposed that a suppression of the

704: $J/\Psi$ yield in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions is a

705: plausible signature for the formation of the quark-gluon plasma because

706: the $J/\Psi$ should dissolve in the QGP due to color screening.  This

707: suggestion has stimulated a number of heavy-ion experiments at CERN SPS

708: to measure the $J/\Psi$ via its dimuon decay. Indeed, these experiments

709: have shown a significant reduction of the $J/\Psi$ yield when going from 

710: proton-nucleus to nucleus-nucleus collisions \cite{NA38}.

711: Especially for Pb~+~Pb at 160~A$\cdot$GeV an even more dramatic

712: reduction of $J/\Psi$ has been reported by the NA50 Collaboration

713: \cite{NA50,gonin,NA5099}.

714: 

715: To interpret the experimental results, various models based on

716: $J/\Psi$ absorption by hadrons have been also proposed (cf. Refs.

717: \cite{Cass99,Vogt99,Seattle98} for recent reviews) that do not

718: involve the assumption of a QGP phase transition. The role of

719: comover dissociation is presently again heavily debated

720: \cite{Bernd,Seattle98} especially since theoretical calculations

721: for $J/\Psi$-meson dissociation cross sections differ by up to a

722: factor of 50 \cite{Bernd,Haglin,Bernd96,Blaschke,DimaSatz}. The

723: problem is even more complicated since the $J/\Psi$ meson is not

724: created instantly as a hadronic state and there is also a

725: substantial ($\approx$ 35 \%)  feeding from the $\chi_c -\gamma$

726: decays. Moreover, it is expected that the $c\bar{c}$ pair is first

727: produced in a color-octet state together with a gluon

728: ('pre-resonance state') and that this more extended configuration

729: has a larger interaction cross section with baryons and mesons

730: before the $J/\Psi$ singlet state, $\Psi'$ or $\chi_c$ finally

731: emerges after some formation time $\tau_c$. Additionally, the

732: dissociation on mesons of formed $J/\Psi$'s will differ from

733: $\chi_c$ due to their different thresholds with respect to the

734: $D\bar{D}$ channel as well as for the $\Psi^{\prime}$. Since

735: experimental information on the various charmonium-meson cross

736: sections -- especially at low relative momenta -- will be hard to

737: obtain, the excitation function of charmonium suppression in

738: central nucleus-nucleus collisions might be exploited to obtain

739: additional information on the absorption scenarios. One expects

740: that quite below the bombarding energy necessary for the formation

741: of a QGP phase the charmonium absorption should be entirely due to

742: dissociation with hadrons; any additional suppression due to color

743: screening then will show up in a more rapid suppression with the

744: incident energy or with the energy density achieved

745: \cite{SatzQM99}.

746: 

747: In this Section we calculate the excitation function for $J/\Psi$

748: suppression within two absorption scenarios, i.e. the 'early' and

749: 'late' comover dissociation models, which have been explored in detail

750: by our group before at SPS energies \cite{CaKo97JPsi,Cass97d,Geiss2}.

751: The 'early' comover absorption scenario is based on the idea, that a $c

752: \bar{c}$ pair is created in the initial 'hard' phase of the

753: nucleus-nucleus collision, where the string density is very high, and

754: the $c\bar{c}$ pair is dissolved in the color electric field of

755: neighboring strings.  Since in the HSD approach the information on the

756: string density as well as the string space-time extension is available,

757: the absorption model has only a single parameter, i.e. the average

758: transverse dimension of an extending string. In Ref. \cite{Geiss2} a

759: string radius of 0.2 fm was found to describe simultaneously the data

760: for p~+~A and S~+~U at 200 A$\cdot$GeV from NA38 \cite{NA38} and for

761: Pb~+~Pb at 160 A$\cdot$GeV from NA50 \cite{NA50} when adopting the

762: conventional charmonium-nucleon dissociation cross section of 6 mb. It

763: has been also speculated that the overlap of strings due to percolation

764: might describe the phase transition to a QGP \cite{Satz99}.

765: 

766: In the 'late' comover scenario the additional charmonium suppression is

767: due to charmo\-nium-meson scattering to $D\bar{D}$ with an average

768: charmonium-meson cross section of $\approx$ 3 mb \cite{Cass97d}. Cross

769: sections of this order have been calculated by Haglin in Ref.

770: \cite{Haglin} within a meson-exchange model and thus might appear not

771: unrealistic. In our present calculation we refer to the model II of

772: Ref. \cite{Cass97d} including a 'pre-resonance' charmonium life time of

773: 0.3--0.5~fm/c which is supported (within the errorbars) by a more

774: recent analysis of charmonium suppression as a function of the Feynman

775: variable $x_F$ in p~+~A reactions \cite{pAdata} from He et al.

776: \cite{Huefner} and Kharzeev et al. \cite{Dima99}. We recall that within

777: the model II of Ref. \cite{Cass97d} the $J/\Psi$ suppression data for

778: p~+~A and S~+~U at 200 A$\cdot$GeV from NA38 \cite{NA38} and for Pb~+~Pb

779: at 160 A$\cdot$GeV from NA50 \cite{NA50} have been described very well

780: when adopting a 'pre-resonance'-nucleon cross section of 6 mb and a

781: $J/\Psi$-nucleon cross section of 3--4~mb in line with the data on

782: $J/\Psi$ photoproduction \cite{Photo}. Independent dynamical studies on

783: charmonium suppression within the UrQMD model \cite{Gerland,Spieles}

784: later on have lead to very similar conclusions.

785: 

786: Since the comparison of our calculations at SPS energies has been

787: performed to data taken in 1995 and before we show in Fig.

788: \ref{Fig10} a comparison of the 'early' comover model (dashed

789: line) \cite{Geiss2} and the 'late' comover model II \cite{Cass97d}

790: with the more recent data from NA50 \cite{NA5099,NA50QM} for

791: Pb~+~Pb at 160 A$\cdot$GeV using the explicit numbers from Refs.

792: \cite{Cass97d,Geiss2}\footnote{This comparison is necessary since

793: the 1995 data have been rescaled in \cite{NA50QM} and our

794: calculations are reported inconsistently in the more recent

795: presentations of this topic \cite{NA50QM,BM99}.}. The 'early'

796: comover absorption model here gives a little too low suppression

797: at high $E_T$ whereas the 'late' comover absorption model is still

798: in line with the more recent data from 1996 and 1998 with minimum

799: bias (open triangles and open circles). The data from 1996 (full

800: squares), that show a (much debated) two-step behaviour, do not

801: agree with the explicit $E_T$ dependence from our calculations;

802: however, the 1996 minimum bias data (open triangles) well match

803: for $E_T \geq$ 40 GeV whereas the $J/\Psi$ suppression is slightly

804: overestimated at lower $E_T$. We do not comment on the highest

805: $E_T$ data points from 1998 with minimum bias since our earlier

806: analysis did not extend to these specific events.

807: 

808: The question now arises, if the excitation function for $J/\Psi$

809: suppression in central Au~+~Au collisions might show some unusual

810: behaviour within the two scenarios discussed above or how they

811: might be disentangled. In order to achieve the same suppression

812: factor in central collisions within the 'early' comover model we

813: have increased the string absorption radius from $r_s$ = 0.2 fm to

814: 0.22 fm to get the same value for the $J/\Psi$ survival factor

815: $S_{J/\Psi}$ at 160 A$\cdot$GeV. We note that the total $J/\Psi$

816: multiplicity shown in Fig.  \ref{Fig5} has been calculated within

817: the 'late' comover model. It drops by almost 3 orders of magnitude

818: when decreasing the bombarding energy from 160 A$\cdot$GeV to 20

819: A$\cdot$GeV.  At the lowest energy considered here the

820: experimental $J/\Psi$ signal will be very hard to measure; it is

821: hopeless within the present experimental setups. Nevertheless, it

822: is worth exploring theoretically if some unusual excitation

823: function might be found.  Our results are displayed in Fig.

824: \ref{Fig11} (l.h.s.) for the 'early' absorption model (open

825: circles) and for the 'late' comover model (full circles); both

826: models practically do not differ in their excitation functions and

827: show a very smooth decrease of $S_{J/\Psi}$ from 0.4 to 0.3 with

828: increasing bombarding energy.  The net absorption by baryons is

829: dominant in both scenarios, however, differs in magnitude due to

830: the simple fact that in the 'early' (string) absorption model

831: there is less suppression by baryons since the absorption by

832: strings competes at early times.  In the 'late' comover model

833: there is more absorption by baryons because the mesons are formed

834: at later stages and not competitive in the early phase; their

835: relative contribution is lower as for strings accordingly.

836: However, these individual contributions cannot be distinguished

837: experimentally and thus are 'irrelevant'.

838: 

839: The r.h.s. of Fig. 11 shows the survival probability $S_{J/\Psi}$

840: in the 'late' comover model for central Au + Au collisions from

841: 0.160 A$\cdot$TeV to 21.5 A$\cdot$TeV, respectively, where we have gated on

842: $J/\Psi$'s in the rapidity interval -1 $\leq y_{cm} \leq$ 1. The

843: solid line stands for the total $J/\Psi$ survival probability

844: while the dashed line displays the relative absorption on baryons

845: and the dotted line the relative dissociation on mesons. Whereas

846: the dissociation on baryons is practically constant with

847: bombarding energy, the absorption on mesons increases in line with

848: the higher meson densities achieved with increasing $E/A$. We note

849: that the 'early' comover model leads to a similar total absorption

850: within the numerical accuracy.

851: 

852: We have to mention that neither the 'early' nor the 'late' comover

853: model might be realized in nature exclusively and both absorption

854: processes should occur within the same reaction with probably

855: different weights. Since we do not find a substantial difference

856: for both scenarios also a linear combination of both absorption

857: models, i.e.  decreasing $r_s$ as well as the charmonium-meson

858: cross section accordingly, will lead to a similar excitation

859: function. This also holds for the relative suppression on the

860: transverse energy $E_T$ (cf. Fig. \ref{Fig10}).

861: 

862: Inspite of the rather disappointing perspectives to disentangle

863: the 'late' and 'early' comover models experimentally at the full

864: range of SPS energies, the excitation function of $J/\Psi$ still

865: might show some discontinuity in $E/A$ experimentally, which could

866: rule out the two models studied here and indicate a transition to

867: a QGP phase. This subject is taken up in the next Section again

868: with respect to the dependence of $S_{J/\Psi}$ on the transverse

869: energy $E_T$ produced in Au + Au collisions at RHIC energies.

870: 

871: 

872: 

873: \section{Predictions for RHIC energies}

874: 

875: As noted in the introduction one expects that the initial

876: nonequilibrium phase of a nucleus-nucleus collision at RHIC

877: energies should be described by parton degrees of freedom, whereas

878: hadrons are only formed (by 'condensation') at a later stage of

879: the reaction and interact until freeze out.  Thus parton cascade

880: calculations should be adequate for all initial reactions

881: involving a large 4-momentum transfer between the constituents,

882: while hadron cascades should be appropriate in the final hadronic

883: expansion phase. We suggest that the dynamics in between the

884: partonic and hadronic phase might be described by quarks

885: (diquarks) and strings as e.g. implemented in the HSD approach.

886: 

887: The practical question is, however, if nonequilibrium partonic and

888: hadron/string models can be distinguished at all, i.e. do they

889: lead to different predictions for experimental observables?  In

890: fact, first applications of the parton cascade model developed by

891: Geiger \cite{Geiger1,VNI} to nucleus-nucleus collisions at SPS

892: energies \cite{Geiger} have suggested that a reasonable

893: description of the meson and baryon rapidity distributions can

894: also be achieved on the basis of partonic degrees of freedom.

895: However, in the latter calculations the extrapolation of the

896: strong coupling constant to low $Q^2$ has been overestimated as

897: discovered recently by Bass and M\"uller \cite{Bass99c}. This

898: finding invalidates the detailed predictions and comparisons

899: within the hybrid models VNI+UrQMD or VNI+HSD presented in Ref.

900: \cite{QMRHIC} that have been tailored to describe the dynamics at

901: RHIC or even LHC energies.

902: 

903: We start with $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV.  The

904: calculated results for the proton, $\pi^+$ and $K^+$ rapidity

905: distributions in the cms are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig12} (upper

906: part) for both models, which are denoted individually by the

907: labels VNI and HSD in obvious notation. On the level of $pp$

908: collisions we find only minor differences between the two kinetic

909: models. The parton cascade shows a slightly higher amount of

910: proton stopping as the HSD model (l.h.s.) and as a consequence a

911: slightly higher production of $\pi^+$ and $K^+$ mesons (r.h.s.),

912: because the energy taken from the relative motion of the leading

913: baryons is converted to the production of mesons. It is presently

914: unclear which of the two approaches will be closer to experiment;

915: a proper description of $pp$ data will be a necessary step before

916: performing reliable extrapolations to nucleus-nucleus collisions.

917: 

918: Inspite of this missing experimental information we directly step

919: towards central collisions ($b \leq$ 1.5 fm) for Au~+~Au at

920: $\sqrt{s}$ = 200~GeV. The calculated results for the net proton

921: (here $p-\bar{p}$), antiproton, $\pi^+$ and $K^+$ rapidity

922: distributions in the cms are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig12} (lower

923: part). In the HSD scenario essentially 'comover' scattering occurs

924: with a low change of the meson rapidity distribution. Thus the

925: meson rapidity distributions are roughly the same as for $pp$

926: collisions. Also note that at midrapidity the net baryon density

927: $\sim N_p - N_{\bar{p}}$ is practically zero, however, even at

928: midrapidity at lot of baryons appear that are produced together

929: with antibaryons. Thus also mesons (especially $c \bar{c}$ pairs)

930: encounter a lot of baryons and antibaryons on their way to the

931: continuum. Whereas the HSD approach predicts a vanishing net

932: baryon density at midrapidity, other recent models -- that combine

933: high and low energy transport concepts -- suggest a sizeable net

934: proton density for $y_{cm} \approx$ 0 \cite{Ko99}.

935: 

936: The amount of higher order hadronic rescattering processes at RHIC

937: energies is depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig13} (lower right part) as

938: emerging from the HSD calculation, where the number of

939: baryon-baryon ($BB$) and meson-baryon collisions ($mB$) is shown

940: as a function of the invariant energy $\sqrt{s}$.  We mention that

941: quark-baryon and diquark-baryon collisions are counted here as

942: $mB$ or $BB$ collisions, respectively. Apart from the initial

943: small peak at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV a substantial amount of

944: intermediate and low energy rescattering processes with maxima at

945: 2.5 GeV and 1.8 GeV are found, which essentially stand for flavor

946: exchange processes, multiple pion production in $mB$ and $BB$

947: collisions as well as secondary strangeness production channels.

948: For comparison the corresponding $\sqrt{s}$ distributions are also

949: displayed for bombarding energies of 2, 11 and 160 A$\cdot$GeV,

950: respectively, showing a dominance of low energy $BB$ and $mB$

951: collisions. The latter reactions occur at energy scales where

952: perturbative QCD is no longer applicable. This has to be kept in

953: mind additionally when comparing to $pp$ and $pA$ reactions at

954: $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV.

955: 

956: We return to the question of charmonium suppression at RHIC

957: energies since it is expected that one might probe increasing

958: energy densities also with increasing centrality of the collision,

959: where the latter can be correlated with the transverse energy

960: $E_T$ produced in a collision event. As argued e.g. by Satz

961: \cite{SatzQM99} the survival factor $S_{J/\Psi}$ then should show

962: steps as a function of $E_T$ due to the melting of first the

963: $\chi_c$ and then the $J/\Psi$ in a QGP phase. As seen from Fig.

964: 10 there are no pronounced steps in the $E_T$ dependence of

965: $J/\Psi$ suppression in the data for Pb + Pb at SPS energies

966: according to the authors point of view; this situation might

967: change at RHIC energies.

968: 

969: Using the 'late' comover model described in Section 5 we have

970: calculated the $J/\Psi$ survival factor $S_{J/\Psi}$ as a function

971: of the transverse energy $E_T$ in the cms rapidity window [-1,1]

972: for Au + Au at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV on an event by event basis

973: covering all impact parameters from $b$ = 0 to 13 fm. The resulting

974: correlation of $S_{J/\Psi}$ with $E_T$ is shown in Fig. 14 and

975: indicates a smooth decrease with centrality (or increasing $E_T$)

976: reaching an average survival probability of $\approx$ 0.1 for the

977: most central events (cf. Fig. 11, r.h.s.). This result can be

978: understood as follows: According to our calculations the net

979: $J/\Psi$ dissociation by mesons in central Au + Au collisions at

980: the SPS is $\approx 16\%$ (cf. Fig. 11) while the rapidity

981: distribution of negatively charged particles ($h^-$) at

982: midrapidity here is about 180. At the RHIC energy we get a

983: corresponding $h^-$ rapidity density at midrapidity of $\approx$

984: 450 (cf. Fig. 12) which is higher by a factor of 2.5. Simply

985: multiplying the $J/\Psi$ meson absorption at the SPS of $16 \%$ by

986: the factor 2.5 we obtain about $40 \%$ for central collisions at

987: RHIC energies, which together with $\approx 52 \%$ of absorption

988: on baryons gives a survival probability of $8 \%$. The actual

989: numerical results in Fig. 14 indicate that this simple estimate

990: works quite well. On the other hand, if the $h^-$ rapidity density

991: is found to be lower (higher) experimentally, we expect

992: corresponding changes in the $J/\Psi$ suppression for central

993: events if the 'late' comover absorption model holds true. This

994: dependence might well be tested experimentally in the near future

995: to possibly falsify the comover dissociation model.

996: 

997: 

998: \section{Summary}

999: 

1000: In this work we have performed a systematic analysis of hadron

1001: production in central Au~+~Au collisions from SIS to RHIC energies

1002: within the HSD transport approach. We have concentrated here on the

1003: 'classical' signatures, i.e. strangeness and low mass dilepton

1004: enhancement as well as charmonium suppression. For all observables our

1005: calculations give a monotonic increase (for the ratio $K^+/\pi^+$ and

1006: charmonium suppression) or decrease (for the low mass dilepton

1007: enhancement) with bombarding energy, respectively.  So far, experimental

1008: data are available only in a limited range of bombarding energies or at

1009: a single energy, respectively. We have pointed out that the relative

1010: maximum indicated by the experimental data in the $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio at

1011: about 10 A$\cdot$GeV (or higher?) is not reproduced within the transport

1012: approach that is based on quark, diquark, string and hadronic degrees

1013: of freedom.  We speculate that at AGS energies this failure might be

1014: attributed to a restoration of chiral symmetry in a sufficiently large

1015: space-time volume (cf. Figs. \ref{Fig3} and \ref{Fig4}).

1016: 

1017: The enhancement of low mass dileptons in the range 0.3 GeV $\leq

1018: M_{e^+e^-} \leq$  0.6 GeV is most pronounced at lower bombarding

1019: energies of 2--5 A$\cdot$GeV within our calculations since here the

1020: space-time volume for densities above 2 $\rho_0$ is very large such

1021: that a majority of $\rho$-mesons probes the high density phase of the

1022: reaction (cf. Fig. \ref{Fig5}). With increasing bombarding energy the

1023: average density -- which a $\rho$-meson experiences -- drops

1024: substantially such that high energy nucleus-nucleus collisions are not

1025: well suited for in-medium $\rho$ spectroscopy.

1026: 

1027: The suppression of charmonium (here $J/\Psi$) increases smoothly

1028: with bombarding energy and centrality of the reaction within the

1029: 'early' and 'late' comover absorption scenarios. Unfortunately,

1030: both scenarios cannot be distinguished by means of the excitation

1031: function since they give approximately the same survival

1032: probability $S_{J/\Psi}$ with bombarding energy (cf. Fig. 11). In

1033: the transport approach the smooth increase of charmonium

1034: absorption with bombarding energy is easy to understand:  a major

1035: fraction of $J/\Psi$'s is anyhow dissociated by baryons which

1036: basically are of the same number at all energies considered here;

1037: only the relative collisional energy changes. The additional

1038: absorption by 'early' strings or 'late' hadrons increases smoothly

1039: with bombarding energy since the string and hadron density

1040: increases accordingly. At RHIC energies this additional

1041: suppression mechanism leads to a $J/\Psi$ suppression of about

1042: 90\% in central Au~+~Au collisions even without employing an

1043: explicit formation of a QGP. We note, however, that the charmonium

1044: suppression shows a smooth dependence on the transverse energy

1045: $E_T$ (cf. Fig. 14); any gradual steps of $S_{J/\Psi}$ with $E_T$

1046: due to a melting of the $\chi_c$ or the $J/\Psi$ at higher energy

1047: density would indicate a new suppression mechanism which might be

1048: attributed to color screening in a QGP phase \cite{SatzQM99}.

1049: 

1050: 

1051: \vspace{1cm} The authors acknowledge inspiring discussions with J.

1052: Aichelin, S. A. Bass, G. E. Brown, C. Greiner, M. Gyulassy, C. M.

1053: Ko, U. Mosel, R. Rapp, H. Satz, H. Sorge, H. St\"ocker, J.

1054: Wambach, X.-N. Wang and K. Werner.

1055: 

1056: 

1057: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

1058: \bibitem{Harris}

1059:     J. W. Harris and B. M\"uller, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 46 (1996) 71.

1060: \bibitem{Shuryak93}

1061:     E. V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 (1993) 1.

1062: \bibitem{QM99}

1063:     Quark Matter'99, Nucl. Phys. A (1999) , in press.

1064: \bibitem{Geiger3}

1065:     K. Geiger and B. M\"uller, Nucl. Phys. B 369 (1992) 600.

1066: \bibitem{Bernd}

1067:     B. M\"uller, nucl-th/9906029, Nucl. Phys. A, in press.

1068: \bibitem{Sorge99}

1069:     H. Sorge, nucl-th/9906051, Nucl. Phys. A, in press.

1070: \bibitem{Basrev}

1071:     S. A. Bass et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41 (1998) 225;

1072:     J. Phys. G 25 (1999) R1.

1073: \bibitem{Geiger1}

1074:     K. Geiger, Phys. Rep. 258 (1995) 237.

1075: \bibitem{Wang}

1076:     X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rep. 280 (1997) 287.

1077: \bibitem{Cass99}

1078:     W. Cassing and E. L. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rep. 308 (1999) 65.

1079: \bibitem{Ehehalt}

1080:     W. Ehehalt and W. Cassing, Nucl. Phys. A 602 (1996) 449.

1081: \bibitem{Jgeiss}

1082:     J. Geiss, W. Cassing, and C. Greiner, Nucl. Phys. A 644 (1998) 107.

1083: \bibitem{Brown}

1084:     G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 2720.

1085: \bibitem{Kochr}

1086:     V. Koch, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 6 (1997) 203.

1087: \bibitem{Zahed}

1088:         J. V. Steele, H. Yamagishi, and I. Zahed,

1089:         Phys. Lett. B 384 (1996) 255;  Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 5605.

1090: \bibitem{Stoecker}

1091:     H. St\"ocker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rep. 137 (1986) 277.

1092: \bibitem{Bertsch}

1093:     G. F. Bertsch and S. Das Gupta, Phys. Rep. 160 (1988) 189.

1094: \bibitem{Cass90}

1095:     W. Cassing, V. Metag, U. Mosel, and K. Niita,

1096:        Phys. Rep. 188 (1990) 363.

1097: \bibitem{Koreview}

1098:     C. M. Ko and G. Q. Li, J. Phys. G 22 (1996) 1673.

1099: \bibitem{Bot}

1100:     W. Botermans and R. Malfliet, Phys. Rep. 198 (1990) 115.

1101: \bibitem{Mal}

1102:     R. Malfliet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 21 (1988) 207.

1103: \bibitem{T3}

1104:     A. Faessler, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 30 (1993) 229.

1105: \bibitem{GEB}

1106:     G. E. Brown, Prog. Theor. Phys. 91 (1987) 85.

1107: \bibitem{GEB1}

1108:     G. E. Brown, C. M. Ko, Z. G. Wu, and L. H. Xia,

1109:     Phys. Rev. C 43 (1991) 1881.

1110: \bibitem{Koch}

1111:     V. Koch and G. E. Brown, Nucl. Phys. A 560 (1993) 345.

1112: \bibitem{Lat1}

1113:     B. Peterson, Nucl. Phys. B 30 (1992) 66.

1114: \bibitem{Lat2}

1115:     F. Karsch, Nucl. Phys. B 34 (1993) 63.

1116: \bibitem{Lat3}

1117:     J. Engels, Phys. Lett. B 252 (1990) 625;

1118:     J. Engels, F. Karsch and K. Redlich, Nucl. Phys. B 435 (1995) 295.

1119: \bibitem{Lat4}

1120:     F. Karsch and E. Laermann, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 6954.

1121: \bibitem{Cass}

1122:     W. Cassing and U. Mosel, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.  25 (1990) 235.

1123: \bibitem{Weber1}

1124:     K. Weber, B. Bl\"attel, W. Cassing, H.-C. D\"onges, V. Koch,

1125:     A. Lang, and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A 539 (1992) 713.

1126: \bibitem{Hama}

1127:     S. Hama, B. C. Clark, E. D. Cooper, H. S. Sherif and R. L. Mercer,

1128:     Phys. Rev. C 41 (1990) 2737.

1129: \bibitem{LUND}

1130:     B. Nilsson-Almqvist and E. Stenlund, Comp. Phys. Comm. 43 (1987) 387;

1131:     B. Anderson, G. Gustafson and Hong Pi, Z. Phys. C 57 (1993) 485.

1132: \bibitem{Schwinger}

1133:     J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 83 (1951) 664

1134: \bibitem{PYTHIA}

1135:     H.-U. Bengtsson and T. Sj\"ostrand,

1136:     Computer Physics Commun. 46 (1987) 43.

1137: \bibitem{Drukarev}

1138:     E. G. Drukarev and E. M.  Levin, Nucl. Phys. A 511 (1990) 679.

1139: \bibitem{Toneev98}

1140:     B. Friman, W.  N\"orenberg and V. D. Toneev,

1141:     Eur. Phys. J. A 3 (1998) 165.

1142: \bibitem{brat97}

1143:     E. L. Bratkovskaya and W. Cassing, Nucl. Phys. A 619 (1997) 413.

1144: \bibitem{Sahu99}

1145:     P. K. Sahu, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, and A. Ohnishi, nucl-th/9907002.

1146: \bibitem{brat99c}

1147:     E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, C. Greiner et al.,

1148:     preprint UGI-99-32.

1149: \bibitem{Cass97a}

1150:     W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, U. Mosel, S. Teis, and A. Sibirtsev,

1151:     Nucl. Phys. A 614 (1997) 415.

1152: \bibitem{Brat97b}

1153:     E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A 622 (1997) 593.

1154: \bibitem{Brat98a}

1155:     E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing and U. Mosel, Phys. Lett. B 424 (1998) 244.

1156: \bibitem{Brat98b}

1157:     E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, R. Rapp, and J.Wambach,

1158:     Nucl. Phys. A 634 (1998) 168.

1159: \bibitem{SQM98}

1160:     {\it Strangeness in Quark Matter 1998}, J. Phys. G 25 (1999) 143.

1161: \bibitem{E866}

1162:     C. A. Ogilvie for the E866 and E819 Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 638

1163:     (1998) 57c; J. Phys. G 25 (1999) 159.

1164: \bibitem{Alard}

1165:     L. Ahle et al., Nucl. Phys. A 610 (1996) 139c;

1166:      Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998) R466; Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 044904.

1167: \bibitem{BM}

1168:     P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J. P. Wessels, and N. Xu,

1169:     Phys. Lett. B 344 (1995) 43;

1170:     Phys. Lett. B 365 (1996) 1.

1171: \bibitem{Wang99}

1172:     F. Wang, H. Liu, H. Sorge, N. Xu, and J. Yang, nucl-th/9909001.

1173: \bibitem{Sorge96}

1174:     H. Sorge, Z. Phys. C 67 (1995) 479; Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 3291;

1175:     Nucl. Phys. A 630 (1998) 522c.

1176: \bibitem{Shuryak}

1177:     E. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 150;

1178:     Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28 (1978) 408.

1179: \bibitem{Kaj}

1180:     K. Kajantie, J. Kapusta, L. McLerran, and A. Mekjian,

1181:     Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 2746.

1182: \bibitem{Ruuskanen}

1183:     P. V. Ruuskanen, Nucl. Phys. A 544 (1992) 169c.

1184: \bibitem{Cleym}

1185:     J. Cleymans, K. Redlich and H. Satz, Z. Phys. C 52 (1991) 517.

1186: \bibitem{Uheinz}

1187:     U. Heinz and K. S. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 259 (1991) 162.

1188: \bibitem{Kling}

1189:     F. Klingl, N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 624 (1997) 527.

1190: \bibitem{ro88}

1191:     G. Roche  et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 1069;

1192:     C. Naudet et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 2652;

1193:     G. Roche et al., Phys. Lett. B 226 (1989) 228.

1194: \bibitem{CERES}

1195:     G. Agakichiev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1272.

1196: \bibitem{Ullrich}

1197:     G. Agakichiev et al., Phys. Lett. B 422 (1998) 405.

1198: \bibitem{HELIOS}

1199:     M. A. Mazzoni, Nucl. Phys. A 566 (1994) 95c;

1200:     M. Masera, Nucl. Phys. A 590 (1995) 93c.

1201: \bibitem{HELI2}

1202:     T. {\AA}kesson et al., Z. Phys. C 68 (1995) 47.

1203: \bibitem{NA38}

1204:     C. Baglin et al., Phys. Lett. B 220 (1989) 471; B 251 (1990) 465;

1205:     B 270 (1991) 105; B 345 (1995) 617;

1206:     S. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 590 (1995) 117c.

1207: \bibitem{NA50}

1208:     M. Gonin et al.,  Nucl. Phys. A 610 (1996) 404c.

1209: \bibitem{KoKoch}

1210:     C. M. Ko, V. Koch and G. Q. Li, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 47 (1997) 505.

1211: \bibitem{Rapp}

1212:     R. Rapp, G. Chanfray and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 368.

1213: \bibitem{friman}

1214:         B. Friman and H. J. Pirner, Nucl. Phys. A 617 (1997) 496.

1215: \bibitem{RappNPA}

1216:         R. Rapp, G. Chanfray and J. Wambach, Nucl. Phys. A 617 (1997) 472.

1217: \bibitem{Rapp99}

1218:     R. Rapp and J. Wambach, nucl-th/9909229, to appear in Adv. Nucl. Phys.

1219: \bibitem{Brat98c}

1220:     E. L. Bratkovskaya and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 445 (1999) 265.

1221: \bibitem{DLSpp}

1222:     W. K. Wilson et al., Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998) 1865.

1223: \bibitem{Brat99a}

1224:     E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, M. Effenberger, and U. Mosel,

1225:     Nucl. Phys. A 653 (1999) 301.

1226: \bibitem{Ernst}

1227:     C. Ernst, S. A. Bass, M. Belkacem et al., Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 447.

1228: \bibitem{CasRap}

1229:     W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, R. Rapp, and J. Wambach,

1230:     Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998) 916.

1231: \bibitem{matsui}

1232:     T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B 178 (1986) 416.

1233: \bibitem{gonin}

1234:     M. Gonin et al., Nucl. Phys.  A 610 (1996) 404c.

1235: \bibitem{NA5099}

1236:     M. C. Abreu et al., Phys. Lett. B 450 (1999) 456.

1237: \bibitem{Vogt99}

1238:     R. Vogt, Phys. Rep. 310 (1999) 197.

1239: \bibitem{Seattle98}

1240:     X.-N. Wang and B. Jacak, Eds.,{\it Quarkonium production

1241:     in high-energy nuclear collisions}, World-Scientific, 1998.

1242: \bibitem{Haglin}

1243:     K. Haglin, nucl-th/9907034.

1244: \bibitem{Bernd96}

1245:     S. G. Matinyan and B. M\"uller, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 2994.

1246: \bibitem{Blaschke}

1247:     K. Martins, D. Blaschke and E. Quack, Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) 2723.

1248: \bibitem{DimaSatz}

1249:     D. Kharzeev and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B 334 (1994) 155.

1250: \bibitem{SatzQM99} H. Satz, Quark Matter'99, hep-ph/9908339, Nucl.

1251: Phys. A, in press.

1252: \bibitem{CaKo97JPsi}

1253:     W. Cassing and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 396 (1997) 39.

1254: \bibitem{Cass97d}

1255:     W. Cassing and E. L. Bratkovskaya, Nucl. Phys. A 623 (1997) 570.

1256: \bibitem{Geiss2}

1257:     J. Geiss, C. Greiner, E.L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, and U. Mosel,

1258:     Phys. Lett. B 447 (1999) 31.

1259: \bibitem{Satz99}

1260:     H. Satz, Nucl. Phys. A 642 (1998) 130; M. Nardi and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B 442

1261:     (1998) 14.

1262: \bibitem{pAdata}

1263:     M. J. Leitch, E866 Collaboration, Quark Matter'99, Nucl. Phys.

1264:     A, in press.

1265: \bibitem{Huefner}

1266:     Y. B. He, J. H\"ufner and B. Z. Kopeliovich, hep-ph/9908243.

1267: \bibitem{Dima99}

1268:     D. Kharzeev and R. L. Thews, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 041901.

1269: \bibitem{Photo}

1270:     U. Camerini et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975) 483; B.

1271:     Gittelman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975) 1616;

1272:     S. Aid et al., Nucl. Phys. B 472 (1996) 3.

1273: \bibitem{Gerland}

1274:     L. Gerland et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 762.

1275: \bibitem{Spieles}

1276:     C. Spieles et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 5 (1998) 349;

1277:     Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 054901.

1278: \bibitem{NA50QM}

1279:     C. Ciolo for the NA50 Collaboration, Quark Matter'99,

1280:     Nucl. Phys. A, in press.

1281: \bibitem{BM99}

1282:     P. Braun-Munzinger, nucl-ex/9909014, Nucl. Phys. A, in press.

1283: \bibitem{VNI}

1284:     K. Geiger, Comp. Phys. Comm. 104 (1997) 70.

1285: \bibitem{Geiger}

1286:     K. Geiger and D. K. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 2718.

1287: \bibitem{Bass99c}

1288:     S. A. Bass and B. M\"uller, Preprint DUKE-TH-99-192.

1289: \bibitem{QMRHIC}

1290:     S. A. Bass, M. Bleicher, W. Cassing et al.,

1291:     nucl-th/9907090, Nucl. Phys. A, in press.

1292: \bibitem{Ko99}

1293:     B. Zhang, C. M. Ko, B. A. Li, and Z. Lin, nucl-th/9907017.

1294: \end{thebibliography}

1295: 

1296: %----------------------------------------------------------

1297: \newpage

1298: 

1299: \begin{figure}[t]

1300: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1301: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig1exf.eps,width=16cm}}

1302: \vspace*{-5cm}

1303: \caption{The nucleon scalar ($U_S$) and negative vector potential ($-U_0$)

1304: as a function of the nuclear density $\rho$ and relative momentum

1305: $p$ of the nucleon with respect to the nuclear matter rest frame

1306: as implemented in the HSD transport approach

1307: \protect\cite{Ehehalt}.}

1308: \label{Fig1}

1309: \end{figure}

1310: 

1311: \begin{figure}[t]

1312: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-3cm}

1313: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2exf.eps,width=16cm}} \vspace*{-5cm}

1314: \caption{The potential $U_{SEP}$ (5) -- as resulting from the

1315: nucleon scalar ($U_S$) and vector potential ($U_0$) in Fig. 1 --

1316: as a function of the nuclear density $\rho$ and relative momentum

1317: $p$ of the nucleon with respect to the nuclear matter rest frame.}

1318: \label{Fig2}

1319: \end{figure}

1320: 

1321: 

1322: \begin{figure}[t]

1323: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-3cm}

1324: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3exf.eps,width=16cm}} \vspace*{-2cm}

1325: \caption{The scalar quark condensate $<q\bar{q}(x,0,z;t)>$ for

1326: central Au~+~Au collisions at 6 A$\cdot$GeV divided by the vacuum

1327: condensate $<q\bar{q}>_V$ such that the nonperturbative vacuum is

1328: characterized by a value of 1. The $z$-direction has been

1329: stretched by the Lorentz-factor $\gamma_{cm}$ to compensate for

1330: Lorentz contraction, while negative numerical values for the

1331: condensate have been suppressed.} \label{Fig3}

1332: \end{figure}

1333: 

1334: 

1335: \begin{figure}[t]

1336: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1337: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig4exf.eps,width=16cm}}

1338: \vspace*{-2cm}

1339: \caption{Same as Fig. 3 for central collisions of Au~+~Au at 20 A$\cdot$GeV.}

1340: \label{Fig4}

1341: \end{figure}

1342: 

1343: 

1344: 

1345: \begin{figure}[t]

1346: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1347: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig5exf.eps,width=16cm}}

1348: \vspace*{-5cm}

1349: \caption{The meson ($\pi^+, \eta, K^+, K^-, \phi$ and $J/\Psi$)

1350: multiplicities from the HSD approach for central collisions of $Au

1351: + Au$ from 200 A MeV to 21.5 A$\cdot$TeV.}

1352: \label{Fig5}

1353: \end{figure}

1354: 

1355: 

1356: \begin{figure}[t]

1357: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1358: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig6exf.eps,width=16cm}}

1359: \vspace*{-5cm}

1360: \caption{The $K^+/\pi^+$ ratio at midrapidity from central Au~+~Au ($Pb

1361: + Pb$) collisions from 1 A$\cdot$GeV to 21.5 A$\cdot$TeV. The open circles

1362: show the results from HSD for $pp$ collisions while the open

1363: squares are obtained for central Au~+~Au reactions. The

1364: experimental data from Refs. \protect\cite{QM99,E866,Alard} are

1365: displayed in terms of the full circles.}

1366: \label{Fig6}

1367: \end{figure}

1368: 

1369: 

1370: \begin{figure}[t]

1371: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1372: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig7exf.eps,width=16cm}}

1373: \vspace*{-2cm}

1374: \caption{The differential $\rho$-meson distribution versus baryon density

1375: $\rho/\rho_0$ (at the $\rho$ creation point) for central

1376: collisions of Au~+~Au at 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 160 A$\cdot$GeV from

1377: the HSD approach. The production channels involving two baryons or

1378: a meson and a baryon (denoted by $BB \to \rho, \pi B \to \rho$)

1379: are summed up in the solid histograms whereas the dashed

1380: histograms stand for the sum of the meson production channels

1381: (denoted by $\pi\pi \to \rho$) which are dominated by the pion

1382: annihilation channel.}

1383: \label{Fig7}

1384: \end{figure}

1385: 

1386: 

1387: \begin{figure}[t]

1388: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1389: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig8exf.eps,width=16cm}} \vspace*{-2cm}

1390: \caption{The differential dilepton multiplicity $d n_{e^+e^-}/dM$

1391: for central collisions of Au~+~Au for 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50, 160,

1392: and 21500 A$\cdot$GeV. Upper part: HSD calculations involving the

1393: 'free' $\rho$-meson spectral function: lower part: HSD calculation

1394: involving the in-medium $\rho$ spectral function from Rapp et al.

1395: \protect\cite{RappNPA,CasRap}.} \label{Fig8}

1396: \end{figure}

1397: 

1398: 

1399: \begin{figure}[t]

1400: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1401: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig9exf.eps,width=16cm}} \vspace*{-3cm}

1402: \caption{The differential dilepton multiplicity $d n_{e^+e^-}/dM$

1403: for central collisions of Au~+~Au at 2, 10, 50, and 160

1404: A$\cdot$GeV from the HSD calculations involving the 'free'

1405: $\rho$-meson spectral function (solid lines) and the in-medium

1406: $\rho$ spectral function from Rapp et al.

1407: \protect\cite{RappNPA,CasRap} (dashed lines) for comparison.}

1408: \label{Fig9}

1409: \end{figure}

1410: 

1411: 

1412: 

1413: \begin{figure}[t]

1414: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1415: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig10exf.eps,width=16cm}}

1416: \vspace*{-5cm}

1417: \caption{The $J/\Psi$ suppression (in terms of the $\mu^+ \mu^-$ decay

1418: branch relative to the Drell-Yan background from 2.9 -- 4.5 GeV

1419: invariant mass) as a function of the transverse energy $E_T$ in

1420: Pb~+~Pb collisions at 160 A$\cdot$GeV. The solid line stands for the

1421: HSD result within the 'late' comover absorption scenario from Ref.

1422: \protect\cite{Cass97d} while the dashed line results from the

1423: 'early' string absorption scenario from Ref. \protect\cite{Geiss2}

1424: involving a transverse string radius $r_s$ = 0.2 fm. The full dots

1425: stand for the NA50 data from 1995 \protect\cite{NA50}, the full

1426: squares for the 1996 data \protect\cite{NA5099}, the open

1427: triangles for the 1996 data with minimum bias

1428: \protect\cite{NA5099} while the open circles represent the 1998

1429: data \protect\cite{NA50QM}. Note that the 1995 data have been

1430: rescaled in $E_T$ as compared to Ref. \protect\cite{NA50}; the

1431: same rescaling has been adopted to the calculations from Refs.

1432: \protect\cite{Cass97d,Geiss2} which had been compared to the 

1433: data from \protect\cite{NA50}.}

1434: \label{Fig10}

1435: \end{figure}

1436: 

1437: 

1438: \begin{figure}[t]

1439: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1440: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig11exf.eps,width=16cm}} \vspace*{-5cm}

1441: \caption{The $J/\Psi$ survival factor $S^{J/\Psi}$ (in terms of

1442: the $\mu^+ \mu^-$ decay branch relative to the Drell-Yan

1443: background from 2.9 -- 4.5 GeV invariant mass normalized to the

1444: same quantity for $pd$ reactions) as a function of the bombarding

1445: energy in central Au~+~Au collisions from 20 to 160 A$\cdot$GeV

1446: (l.h.s.) and from 160 A$\cdot$GeV to 21.5 A$\cdot$TeV (r.h.s.).

1447: The solid line (full dots) stands for the HSD result within the

1448: 'late' comover absorption scenario from Ref.

1449: \protect\cite{Cass97d} while the solid line (open circles) results from 

1450: the 'early' string absorption scenario from Ref.

1451: \protect\cite{Geiss2} involving a transverse string radius $r_s$ =

1452: 0.22 fm in order to match both absorption scenarios at 160

1453: A$\cdot$GeV. The dashed lines stand for the relative fraction of

1454: $J/\Psi$ dissociations with baryons while the dotted lines stand

1455: for the 'early' comover string dissociation (open circles) and

1456: 'late' comover meson dissociation (full dots), respectively. The

1457: total suppression factors (full lines) are practically identical

1458: for both scenarios from 20 to 160 A$\cdot$GeV (l.h.s.). This also

1459: holds for the energy range from 160 A$\cdot$GeV to 21.5

1460: A$\cdot$TeV within the numerical accuracy achieved. }

1461: \label{Fig11}

1462: \end{figure}

1463: 

1464: 

1465: \begin{figure}[t]

1466: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1467: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig12exf.eps,width=16cm}} \vspace*{-5cm}

1468: \caption{The rapidity distribution of protons (upper left part) from 

1469: $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV from the HSD approach

1470: (solid histogram) in comparison to the prediction from the parton

1471: cascade VNI \protect\cite{VNI} (dashed histogram); the upper right

1472: part shows the same comparison for the $\pi^+$ and $K^+$ rapidity

1473: distributions, respectively. The lower part of the figure displays

1474: the HSD predictions for central ($b \leq$ 1.5 fm) Au~+~Au at

1475: $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV per nucleon; (l.h.s.) net proton

1476: ($p-\bar{p}$) and $\bar{p}$ rapidity distribution, (r.h.s.)

1477: $\pi^+$ and $K^+$ rapidity distributions.} \label{Fig12}

1478: \end{figure}

1479: 

1480: \begin{figure}[t]

1481: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1482: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig13exf.eps,width=16cm}} \vspace*{-5cm}

1483: \caption{The number of baryon-baryon (solid histograms) and

1484: meson-baryon collisions (dashed histograms) as a function of the

1485: invariant energy $\sqrt{s}$ for central ($b \leq$ 1.5 fm) Au~+~Au

1486: collisions at bombarding energies of 2, 11, 160 A$\cdot$GeV and 21

1487: A$\cdot$TeV, respectively, from the HSD model. The arrows indicate the

1488: string thresholds for $mB$ and $BB$ collisions of 2.3 GeV and 2.6

1489: GeV, respectively.} \label{Fig13}

1490: \end{figure}

1491: 

1492: \begin{figure}[t]

1493: \phantom{a}\vspace*{-2.5cm}

1494: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig14exf.eps,width=16cm}} \vspace*{-5cm}

1495: \caption{The $J/\Psi$ survival factor $S_{J/\Psi}$ as a function

1496: of the transverse energy $E_T$ in the rapidity interval (-1 $\leq

1497: y_{cm} \leq$ 1) in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV in

1498: the 'late' comover model. The solid line represents the result for

1499: $J/\Psi$ dissociation on nucleons and mesons, whereas the dashed

1500: line and the dotted line correspond to the absorption on baryons

1501: and mesons, respectively. The error bars in the figure are due to

1502: statistics only. } \label{Fig14}

1503: \end{figure}

1504: 

1505: \end{document}

1506: #!/bin/csh -f

1507: # Uuencoded gz-compressed .tar file created by csh script  uufiles

1508: # For more info (11/95), see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html

1509: # If you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself: strip

1510: # any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figures.uu

1511: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)

1512: # Then say        csh figures.uu

1513: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):

1514: #    uudecode figures.uu ;   gunzip figures.tar.gz ;

1515: #    tar -xvf figures.tar

1516: # On some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use editor to change filename

1517: # in "begin" line below to figures.tar-gz , then execute

1518: #    uudecode figures.uu

1519: #    gzip -d figures.tar-gz

1520: #    tar -xvf figures.tar

1521: #

1522: uudecode $0

1523: chmod 644 figures.tar.gz

1524: gunzip -c figures.tar.gz | tar -xvf -

1525: rm $0 figures.tar.gz

1526: exit

1527: 

1528: