1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}

2: %\def\baselinestretch{2}

3: \textheight=9in

4: \textwidth=6.5in

5: \topmargin=-0.5in

6: \oddsidemargin=0in

7:   

8: \begin{document} 

9: \begin{flushright}{OITS 700}\\

10: March 2001

11: \end{flushright}

12: 

13: \vspace*{1cm}

14: 

15: \begin{center} 

16: {\Large {\bf Void Analysis of Hadronic Density Fluctuations

17: at Phase Transition}}

18: \vskip .75cm

19:  {\bf  Rudolph C. Hwa$^1$ and Qing-hui Zhang$^2$}

20: \vskip.5cm

21:  

22: \vskip.5cm

23:  

24: {$^1$Institute of Theoretical Science and Department of

25: Physics\\ University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5203, USA\\

26: \bigskip

27: $^2$Physics Department, McGill University, Montreal QC 

28: H3A 2T8, Canada}

29: \end{center}

30: \vskip.5cm

31:  

32: 

33: \begin{abstract} 

34: The event-to-event fluctuations of hadron multiplicities are

35: studied for a quark system undergoing second-order phase

36: transition to hadrons.  Emphasis is placed on the search for

37: an observable signature that is realistic for heavy-ion

38: collisions.  It is suggested that in the 2-dimensional

39: $y$-$\phi$ space the produced particles selected in a very

40: narrow $p_T$ window may exhibit clustering patterns even

41: when integrated over the entire emission time.  Using the

42: Ising model to simulate the critical phenomenon and taking

43: into account a $p_T$ distribution that depends on the

44: emission time, we study in the framework of the void

45: analysis proposed earlier and find scaling behavior.  The

46: scaling exponents turn out to be larger than the ones found

47: before for pure configurations without mixing.  The

48: signature is robust in that it is insensitive to the precise

49: scheme of simulating time evolution.  Thus it should reveal

50: whether or not the dense matter created in heavy-ion

51: collisions is a quark-gluon plasma before hadronization.

52: \end{abstract}

53: \section{Introduction}

54: 

55: It is well known that a system undergoing a second-order

56: phase transition exhibits large fluctuations and long-range

57: correlations.  If the symmetry of a quark system created in

58: a heavy-ion collision is such that the quark-hadron phase

59: transition is second order, then one would expect large

60: fluctuations in the multiplicity of hadrons produced, not

61: only from event to event (which happens normally in

62: high-energy collisions), but also from one region to another

63: in the geometrical space into which the particles are

64: emitted at any given time.  It is the latter type of

65: fluctuations that we focus on as a possible signature of the

66: phase transition, when an appropriate measure can be

67: identified.

68: 

69: The fluctuation of local hadron density implies the

70: formation of spatial patterns that exhibit clusters of

71: hadrons of varying sizes.  There are also regions of no

72: particles, which are referred to as voids.  An investigation

73: of the fluctuation of void sizes was carried out by us

74: recently in Ref. \cite{hz}.  We found scaling behaviors,

75: whose exponents were proposed as an observable signature

76: of quark-hadron phase transition (PT).

77: 

78: Recently an analysis of the NA49 data on $Pb$-$Pb$

79: collisions at CERN-SPS was carried out according to the

80: method described in Ref. \cite{hz}.  It is found

81: \cite{cy} that the scaling behaviors exist under certain restricted

82: conditions of the analysis, and that the scaling exponents are

83: significantly lower than the ones predicted in \cite{hz}.

84: 

85: The void analysis studied in \cite{hz} has its limitations.

86: The most serious shortcoming is that it is an analysis of a

87: system that is essentially static.  The aim has been to find a

88: measure suitable for quantifying effectively a given spatial

89: pattern, or a set of them.  However, the hadronization

90: process in a heavy-ion collision is dynamical and takes

91: place over an extended period of time.  If the particles

92: emitted throughout the whole duration are collected at

93: every local region, then the patterns examined in the static

94: scenario overlap one another, and the fluctuating patterns

95: would disappear in the cumulative result.

96: 

97: An analogy to this problem is the nature of rainfalls in two

98: geographical regions with very different climates.  It is not

99: possible to judge from their annual precipitations

100: (assuming that they are roughly the same) whether the

101: rain in one region is stormy, or the other drizzly.  It is

102: necessary to make cuts in the time duration to learn about

103: the spatial fluctuations in short time intervals.  Similarly, in

104: heavy-ion collisions it would be ideal if we could select a

105: small $\Delta t$  interval to analyze the spatial pattern of

106: an event.  That is, however, not feasible in a heavy-ion

107: experiment.  The only cut that can be made experimentally

108: while keeping the $y$-$\phi$ space for analysis is in the

109: $p_T$ variable, i.e., selecting particles in a small $\Delta

110: p_T$ interval.  How to prepare the spatial configuration for

111: our analysis in a way that corresponds to how the

112: experimental data are to be analyzed is an essential part of

113: the present work.

114: 

115: As in \cite{hz}, which follows the theoretical framework or

116: Ref. \cite{hwu}, we assume that the dense quark matter

117: created in a heavy-ion collision is cylindrical in shape,

118: expanding rapidly in the longitudinal direction and more

119: gradually in the radial direction.  It is further reasonable to

120: assume that the thermal system is hot on the inside (with

121: $T > T_c$) and cooler on the surface, where at $T \simeq

122: T_c$ the plasma undergoes a PT to hadrons.  Thus the

123: critical phenomenon occurs on a two-dimensional surface

124: with the particle momenta being mainly normal to that

125: surface.  The fluctuation that we want to examine is in the

126: hadron density from region to region in the $y$-$\phi$

127: space for particles that are emitted in a small $p_T$

128: interval.  To simulate that fluctuation we make use of the

129: theoretical result that the phase boundary between a

130: first-order PT for some low quark masses and a crossover

131: at higher quark masses is a second-order PT belonging to

132: the same universality class as the Ising system

133: \cite{ggp,kr}.  We map a section of the $y$-$\phi$ space

134: on the surface of the plasma cylinder created in a heavy-ion

135: collision to a 2D Ising lattice.  We use the Ising model to

136: simulate the spatial pattern of clusters of spins pointing in

137: the same direction, and relate a cell with a net spin

138: pointing  in one direction to a hadron, and a cell with a net

139: spin in the other direction to no-hadrons, i.e., locally

140: and temporarily still in the quark state.  That is the model

141: that we have used in

142: \cite{hz,hwu}, the essential part of which will be

143: summarized in Sec.\ 2.

144: 

145: Regarding what is simulated on the Ising lattice as a

146: representation of the hadrons density fluctuation on the

147: surface of the plasma cylinder at any given time, we have to

148: relate that to the experimental situation of particles

149: collected in a $\Delta p_T$ cut,  but accumulated

150: throughout the entire hadronization time that can exceed

151: 10 fm/c.  It is a problem of preparing the

152: temporally-integrated configuration on the lattice that can

153: best approximate the real data.  The problem will be

154: discussed in Sec.\ 3.  The analysis of the mixed

155: configurations that leads to scaling behaviors is the content

156: of Sec.\ 4.

157: 

158: \section{Simulation and Analysis of Hadronic Density\\

159: Fluctuation}

160: 

161: An essential feature of critical behavior is that the critical

162: exponents of different systems belong to the same

163: universality class if the systems have the same symmetry

164: and dimension \cite{ng}.  Our use of the Ising model to

165: simulate the spatial patterns at PT is based on the

166: recognition that for appropriate masses of the light and

167: strange quarks the quark-hadron PT is in the same

168: universality class as the Ising system \cite{ggp,kr}.  That is

169: fortunate, since the simulation of Ising lattice is extremely

170: simple.  However, the realistic quark masses may not have

171: exactly the values that correspond to the ones on the phase

172: boundary where the second-order PT occurs.  It is highly

173: likely that the realistic point in the phase diagram is in the

174: broad region of a crossover above the boundary line

175: characterized by the Ising system.  Fortunately again, a

176: crossover can also be easily simulated on the Ising lattice

177: by providing a preferred direction for the spins to be

178: aligned.  We summarize here the main points in the

179: relationship between the Ising problem and the hadron

180: density problem, and then outline the void analysis, the

181: details of which can be found in \cite{hz}.

182: 

183: For a 2D lattice of size $L^2$ with each site having spin

184: $\sigma_j = \pm 1$, we define the spin aligned along the

185: overall magnetization $m_L = \sum_{j \in L^2}\sigma_j$

186: by

187: \begin{eqnarray}

188: s _j = \mbox{sgn} (m_L) \sigma _j

189: \quad ,

190: \label{1}

191: \end{eqnarray}

192: where $\mbox{sgn} (m_L)$ stands for the sign of $m_L$.

193: We relate hadronization at location $i$ to a cell of size

194: $\epsilon^2$ with net spin $c_i$ positive, where

195: \begin{eqnarray}

196: c_i =

197: \sum_j s_j \quad ,

198: \label{1.5}

199: \end{eqnarray}

200: with the sum being over all sites in the

201: cell.  If $c_i \leq 0$, no hadronization takes place at $i$.

202: Hadron density is defined by

203: \begin{eqnarray}

204: \rho_i =  \lambda c^2_i \theta (c_i)\quad ,

205: \label{2}

206: \end{eqnarray}

207: where $\lambda$ is an unspecified factor relating the

208: lattice spins to the number of particles per unit area in

209: $y$-$\phi$ space.  The scaling behavior to be examined

210: should, of course, be independent of the normalization

211: factor $\lambda$.

212: 

213: Since lattice spins fluctuate from site to site when $T$ is

214: near $T_c$, $\rho_i$ also fluctuates from cell to cell, either

215: positive or zero.  When averaged over all cells of a

216: configuration, and then averaged over all uncorrelated

217: configurations at any given $T$, $\left<\rho\right>$ is a

218: smooth function of $T$, descending rapidly near $T_c$ as

219: $T$ is increased \cite{hz, hwu}.  It is a crossover, since the

220: first few orders of derivatives exhibit no signs of

221: discontinuities.  The value of $T_c$ is determined by

222: examining the scaling behavior of the normalized factorial

223: moments $F_q$ \cite{zc}, and is found to be $T_c = 2.315$

224: in the Ising model units of $J/k_B$.

225: 

226: In practice we work with a lattice having $L = 288$ and

227: cells of size $\epsilon = 4$.  For scaling behavior we study

228: the dependences of our measures on the bin size $\delta

229: \times \delta$.  The average hadron density in a bin is

230: $\bar{\rho _b} = \nu^{-1}\sum^{\nu}_{i = 1} \rho _i$,

231: where $\nu = (\delta/\epsilon)^2$.  Near $T_c$,

232: $\bar{\rho _b}$ fluctuates from bin to bin, especially for

233: small $\delta$.  It is that fluctuation we want to

234: characterize by quantitative measures.  Our proposal is to

235: represent $\bar{\rho _b}$ in the 2D space by topographical

236: maps with various discrete elevations $\rho_0$.  For every

237: given $\rho_0$ we define a bin to be ``empty'' when

238: \begin{eqnarray}

239: \bar{\rho _b}< \rho_0  \quad .

240: \label{3}

241: \end{eqnarray}

242: and further define a void to be a collection of contiguous

243: empty bins, connected by at least one side between

244: neighboring bins.  An analogy for this analysis is to flood a

245: rough terrain by water and characterize the landscape

246: profile by either land (nonempty bin) or water (empty

247: bin).   Clearly, by studying the areas of the submerged

248: regions at different water levels, one can capture the

249: topographical properties of the terrain.  In our problem the

250: maximum possible value of $\rho _i$ in a cell is

251: $(\epsilon^2)^2 = 256$ in units of $\lambda$.  A range of

252: $\rho _0$ between 20 and 100 have been used in our void

253: analysis in \cite{hz}.

254: 

255: For the void analysis let $V_k$ be the size of the {\it k}th

256: void in units of bins

257: \begin{eqnarray}

258: V_k = \sum_{\left< b\right>_k} \theta (\rho_0 -

259: \bar{\rho}_b)

260: \quad ,

261: \label{4}

262: \end{eqnarray}

263: where the sum is over all empty bins in the {\it k}th void.

264: Then, let $x_k = V_k/M$ be the fraction of bins in the

265: lattice occupied by $V_k$, where $M = (L/\delta)^2$ is the

266: total number of bins, and let $m$ be the total number of

267: voids in the configuration.

268: We define the normalized $G$

269: moments to be

270: \begin{eqnarray}

271: G_q = {1 \over m} \sum^m_{k = 1} x^q_k \ \left / \ ({1 \over

272: m}

273: \sum^m_{k = 1} x_k)^q \quad.\right.

274: \label{5}

275: \end{eqnarray}

276: For every given configuration, $G_q$ can be determined for

277: various bin sizes, i.e., as a function of $M$.  $G_q$ can

278: fluctuate widely from configuration to configuration.  That

279: fluctuation can be described by a probability distribution

280: $P(G_q)$.  While many moments of that distribution can be

281: studied, we have proposed the two lowest moments

282: \begin{eqnarray}

283: \left<G_q\right> = \int dG_q\,G_q\,P(G_q) \quad ,

284: \label{6}

285: \end{eqnarray}

286: \begin{eqnarray}

287: S_q = \left<G_q\, {\rm ln}\, G_q\right> \quad ,

288: \label{7}

289: \end{eqnarray}

290: the latter being the  derivative with respect to $p$ of

291: the {\it p}th moment evaluated at $p = 1$ \cite{hz}.

292: 

293: For pure configurations simulated on the Ising lattice,

294: scaling behaviors have been found for both

295: $\left<G_q\right>$ and

296: $S_q$

297: \begin{eqnarray}

298: \left<G_q\right> \propto M^{\gamma_q} \quad ,

299: \label{8}

300: \end{eqnarray}

301: \begin{eqnarray}

302: S_q \propto M^{\sigma_q} \quad ,

303: \label{9}

304: \end{eqnarray}

305: for a range of values of $\rho_0$ \cite{hz}.  Furthermore,

306: $\gamma_q$ and $\sigma_q$ depend on $q$ linearly as

307: \begin{eqnarray}

308: \gamma_q = c_0 + cq

309: \quad ,

310: \label{10}

311: \end{eqnarray}

312: \begin{eqnarray}

313: \sigma_q = s_0 + sq

314:  \quad .

315: \label{11}

316: \end{eqnarray}

317: Thus the values $c$ and $s$ (which are the slopes of

318: slopes) are concise characterizations of the fluctuation

319: behavior near the critical point.

320: 

321: It should be stressed that although the 2D Ising model can

322: be solved exactly for an infinite system\cite{kh}, the

323: conventional description of its critical behavior is in terms

324: of the temperature $T$ in the vicinity of $T_c$.   For a

325: quark-hadron system created in a heavy-ion collision, $T$

326: is not measurable, nor controllable.  Our proposed

327: measures of the critical behavior can be determined in

328: high-energy nuclear experiments without any knowledge

329: about $T$.

330: 

331: \section{Mixed Configurations for an Evolving System}

332: 

333: In the previous section we described the observable

334: measures that can be applied to the heavy-ion data on the

335: one hand, and can extract salient features of critical

336: configurations on the other.  Now we focus on the issue of

337: preparing the configurations that correspond more closely

338: to the realistic situation of a quark-gluon plasma expanding,

339: cooling, and hadronizing.

340: 

341: While a detailed modeling of the hydrodynamical

342: expansion of a quark-gluon system is inappropriate for our

343: purpose here, we can emphasize the main features of such

344: an expanding system and incorporate them in our

345: preparation procedure.  Our assumption is that the

346: temperature profile of the plasma cylinder is such that $T$

347: is high $(> T_c)$ in the interior and decreases

348: monotonically toward the surface until $T_c$, where

349: quark-hadron PT takes place at the surface.  The hadrons

350: are emitted nonuniformly from the surface with transverse

351: momenta $p_T$ that can be measured for each particle.

352: The average $\left<p_T\right>$ depends on the radial

353: pressure gradient, which in turn depends on time, since the

354: longitudinal expansion lowers the temperature throughout

355: the cylindrical interior and the radial expansion lowers the

356: radial pressure gradient.  Disregarding high-$p_T$ hard

357: scattering, which affects $\left<p_T\right>$ only in a

358: minor way, we may take the general hydrodynamical

359: implication to be that $\left<p_T\right>$ decreases with

360: the pressure gradient, and therefore with the evolution

361: time $t$.

362: 

363: If the $p_T$ distribution at any given time were narrow,

364: but when integrated over all times it gives the usual

365: exponential damping in $p_T$ for the event distribution

366: $dN/dp_T$, then our problem would be simple.  In the

367: idealized situation of a one-to-one correspondence between

368: $p_T$ and $t$, a narrow $\Delta p_T$ cut in $p_T$ would

369: result in a narrow $\Delta t$ cut in emission time.  That

370: would provide us with a narrow temporal window to view

371: the spatial pattern of hadronization activities on the

372: cylinder surface, and the pure configurations simulated on

373: the Ising lattice would suffice to model the effects of the

374: critical behavior, as discussed in the previous section.

375: 

376: The reality is, however, quite the opposite.  At any given

377: $t$ the $p_T$ distribution is broad, so the particles

378: emitted into a small $\Delta p_T$ interval can come from a

379: wide range of $t$.  That introduces a complication related

380: to the correlation between successive emission times.  But,

381: first, let us describe the $p_T$-$t$ correlation by a model

382: formula that captures the essence of the hydrodynamical

383: character of the $p_T$ distribution at different times

384: \cite{ph}.  We adopt the Gaussian formula

385: \begin{eqnarray}

386: P(p_T, t) = N(t) \mbox{exp}\{-[p_T - p_0(t)

387: ]^2/2p^2_0(t)

388: \} \quad ,

389: \label{12}

390: \end{eqnarray}

391: where

392: \begin{eqnarray}

393: p_0(t) = 2/t \quad {\rm GeV/c}

394: \label{13}

395: \end{eqnarray}

396: and $N(t)$ is the normalization factor that preserves the

397: condition

398: \begin{eqnarray}

399: \int dp_T P(p_T, t) = 1

400: \label{14}

401: \end{eqnarray}

402: for all $t \geq 1$.  It is clear that, as $t$ increases, the

403: Gaussian peak shifts toward lower $p_T$ and its width also

404: decreases correspondingly.  If we make a narrow $\Delta

405: p_T$ cut, say $0.3 < p_T < 0.35$ GeV/c, there are

406: contributions from a wide range of $t$ that are not

407: negligible.

408: 

409: We note that the accuracy of Eq. (\ref{12}) is not important

410: for our purpose, since firstly the $p_T$ distribution depends

411: on the evolution model and on many parameters in the

412: initial condition, and secondly we use it only for simulating

413: configurations at different times in the evolution process in

414: the framework of the Ising model, which is a simple

415: generator of PT configurations that ignore the realistic

416: complications of surface irregularity, quark density

417: fluctuations, surface tension, etc.  However, Eq. (\ref{12})

418: does contain the essence of overlapping $p_T$

419: distributions at successive times, a feature that we want to

420: incorporate in our simulation.  The variable $t$ in Eqs.\

421: (\ref{12}) and (\ref{13}) is used only in the sense of

422: representing time in the simulation (to be detailed below),

423: not as real time in heavy-ion collisions in some physical

424: unit.  We emphasize that the correspondences between the

425: lattice variables and realistic quantities in heavy-ion

426: experiments have never been fixed.  In Eq.\ (\ref{2}) we did

427: not specify $\lambda$ that relates lattice spins to hadron

428: density; the scaling behaviors we seek are independent of

429: $\lambda$.  Here we similarly do not know how to specify

430: the precise relationship between the number of steps in the

431: evolution of the Ising lattice and the actual time of

432: hydrodynamical evolution of a quark system.  We now

433: consider how many steps to take.

434: 

435: If at any given $t$ we have on the Ising lattice a

436: configuration of hadrons and voids, then it is very

437: reasonable to expect that at 1 fm/c later in real time the

438: previous void-region will have a higher probability to

439: hadronize than the region where hadronization has already

440: occurred.  Of course, there are fluctuations in local

441: temperature, in surface curvature, pressure gradient, quark

442: density, and other local properties of the statistical and

443: collective system, all of which are unknown and can affect

444: hadronization locally.  Our procedure is primarily to let the

445: Ising system evolve by updating the spin configuration

446: using the Wolff logarithm \cite{uw}.  Let $S$ denote the

447: number of steps of updating the Ising spin orientations that

448: corresponds to 1 fm/c in real time.  Not knowing what $S$

449: is, but realizing that the Ising configuration does not change

450: drastically in one or two steps, we adopt the following two

451: options.

452: 

453: \noindent {\it Option 1}.	$S = 5$

454: 

455: After every five steps of updating the Ising configuration,

456: we reverse the direction of what is ``up'' to allow the cells

457: in the void region in the previous configuration to

458: be preferred for hadronization.  That is, denoting the

459: number of Ising steps by $nS$, we let $t = n$ in Eq.\

460: (\ref{12}), and replace Eq.\ (\ref{1}) by

461: \begin{eqnarray}

462: s_j=(-1)^n sgn(m_L)\sigma_j .

463: \label{15}

464: \end{eqnarray}

465: Note that if $S$ were $1$, and the Ising configuration

466: changes very slowly, then Eq.\ (\ref{15}) applied to

467: (\ref{1.5}) and (\ref{2}) would suggest that $\rho_i>0$ and

468: $\rho_i<0$ regions approximately alternate as $n$

469: increases.  That is an extreme scenario.  By letting $S=5$, we

470: allow statistical readjustment of the lattice spins as time

471: progresses.  The $(-1)^n$ factor in (\ref{15}) is put in by

472: hand to take into account the hydrodynamical feature that

473: any quark region is likely to hadronize at a later time due to

474: radial expansion and cooling.

475: 

476: \noindent {\it Option 2}.	 $S = 50$

477: 

478: After fifty steps it is likely that some of void regions will

479: have evolved to contain $\rho_i>0$ cells.  It is then not

480: necessary to impose sign flip by hand, so we can continue to

481: use Eq.\ (\ref{1}) for $s_j$ and rely on the fluctuations of

482: the Ising spins to generate new configuration that

483: correspond to successive emission time.  That is, with the

484: number of Ising steps being $nS$, we use $t = n$ in Eq.\

485: (\ref{12}), and without the $(-1)^n$ factor in (\ref{15}) we

486: proceed with the evolution process.  This is an option

487: representing a scheme quite different from the one above.

488: 

489: We now describe the algorithm for generating the

490: temporally-integrated configurations (TIC) in either option

491: of identifying $t$.  At each $t$ we simulate on the Ising

492: lattice a pattern of hadrons and voids.  Let us call that a

493: frozen configuration.  At the location of every cell where

494: $\rho_i>0$, we assign a value of $p_T$ according to the

495: distribution $P(p_T,t)$ given in Eq.\ (\ref{12}).  We choose

496: to keep only those particles whose $p_T$ fall within the

497: interval

498: $\Delta p_T$ that we select, say $0.3<p_T<0.35$ GeV.  The

499: cell location of each of those selected particles are recorded

500: in a new configuration, which is to become the TIC.  Now let

501: $t$ increase by one step, repeat the above procedure, and

502: enter more particles into the TIC at the cell positions where

503: the selected hadrons are located.  We continue to do this up

504: to

505: $t_m$ steps, when the accumulated particles at various places

506: in the 2D space constitute our final TIC for that sum.  The

507: value of $t_m$ is determined by the requirement that the

508: average hadron density for the whole lattice is

509: approximately equal to that in the frozen case (no $t$

510: evolution and any $p_T$) at the same temperature $T$.  In

511: this way we generate a TIC, starting always with $t = 2$ so

512: that $p_0 (t)$ ranges from $1$ down to 0.1 GeV/c.

513: 

514: For our analysis in the next section, we use a lattice of size

515: $L = 288$, with cells of size $\epsilon = 4$, and bin sizes

516: varying from $\delta = 8$ to $32$.  We select $\Delta  p_T$

517: to be between $0.2$ to $0.3$ GeV/c, and the corresponding

518: $t_m$ turns out to be $9$.  We generate $5 \times 10^3$

519: configuration for each sample for analysis, using both

520: options for $t$ evolution.

521: 

522: \section{Scaling Behaviors of the Temporally-Integrated\\

523: Configurations}

524: 

525: Having described how the TIC are prepared, we proceed

526: directly to the analysis discussed in Sec. $2$ and present the

527: results here.

528: 

529: Although the simulation can be done at any $T$ in the

530: vicinity of $T_c$ and the analysis can be done at any

531: elevation $\rho_0$, we show only the scaling behaviors for

532: $T=T_c$ and $\rho_0=40$ [in units of $\lambda$ in Eq.\

533: (\ref{2})].  We shall consider both options of $t$ evolution

534: discussed in the previous section and label the

535: corresponding figures by either $S=5$ or $S=50$.

536: 

537: In Fig.\ 1(a) we show $\left<G_q\right>$ vs $M$ in log-log

538: plot for

539: $S = 5$.  Clearly, it exhibits very good scaling behavior for

540: all values of $q$ considered.  It means that voids of all sizes

541: exist in the TIC.  Since the behavior is very similar to the

542: one found in \cite{hz} for the pure or frozen configurations,

543: the implication is that the mixing of configurations

544: selected in the $\Delta p_T$ window and integrated over

545: the emission time does not lead to a homogenization of the

546: clustering patterns.  This behavior is possible only if each

547: of the underlying (frozen) configuration exhibits critical

548: fluctuation.  Taking a small portion of each of such

549: configurations at different $t$ and adding them up retain the

550: fluctuating nature of the void structure that gives rise to the

551: scaling behavior.  This is a very fortunate feature that

552: makes possible the detection of the critical behavior in

553: heavy-ion collision.

554: 

555: From the slopes of the straight-line fits in Fig.\ 1(a), which

556: are denoted by $\gamma_q$ in Eq.\ (\ref{8}), we show the

557: dependence of $\gamma_q$ on $q$ in Fig. $1(b)$.  Evidently,

558: Eq.\ (\ref{10}) is a good description of that linear

559: dependence.  The slope $c$ of slopes is a numerical

560: characterization of the scaling behavior of

561: $\left<G_q\right>$.  Its value in this case is $c = 0.92$,

562: which is significantly larger than the value of $0.7$ found

563: in

564: \cite{hz} for pure (frozen) configurations.

565: 

566: The same analysis is carried out in option 2 of $t$

567: evolution.  The corresponding results are shown in Figs.\

568: 2(a) and (b).  The value of $c = 0.97$ is slightly larger,

569: but is sufficiently close to the value from option 1 that

570: one can reasonably infer the essential independence of the

571: critical fluctuation on the procedure of simulating the

572: temporal evolution.

573: 

574: We have also investigated the dependences on $\rho_0$.

575: In Fig.\ 3 we show the values of $c$ for the two options in

576: $t$ evolution as functions of $\rho_0$.  It should be

577: understood that by giving the values of $c$ we are

578: asserting the existence of scaling such as those shown in

579: Figs.\ 1(a) and 2(a) for all the values of $\rho_0$

580: examined.  No essential difference between the two options

581: of time evolution has been found.  The feature in Fig.\ 3 to be

582: noted is the wide range of $\rho_0$ from 40 to 100 in which the

583: scaling behavior can be found.  To give a sense of the

584: normalization for those numbers, it should be remarked that

585: the average  $\left<\rho\right>$ is around 78.  That feature and

586: the values of $c$ ranging between 0.75 and 0.96 may now be

587: regarded as the quantitative signature of quark-hadron phase

588: transition that should be checked in heavy-ion collisions.

589: 

590: For all that have been done for $\left<G_q\right>$ above,

591: we can do the same for $S_q$ defined in Eq.\ (\ref{7}).

592: Fig.\ 4(a) shows the scaling behavior of $S_q$ vs $M$,

593: whose exponents $\sigma_q$ are shown in Fig.\ 4(b), all

594: for $S = 5$.  The value of the slope $s$, defined in Eq.\

595: (\ref{11}), is 0.82 and $\rho_0 = 40$.  For  $S = 50$ the

596: corresponding figures are shown in Figs.\ 5(a) and (b), and

597: the value of $s$ is 0.89.  Finally, the dependence of $s$ on

598: $\rho_0$ is shown in Fig.\ 6.  The range of $\rho_0$ is the same as

599: for $\left< G_q\right>$, and the range of $s$ is between 0.7 and 0.9.

600: 

601: For a rough comparison we mention that in the real data of

602: NA 49 the scaling behaviors of $\left<G_q\right>$ and

603: $S_q$ are found only in very restricted ranges of $\rho_0$

604: and the values of $c$ and $s$ are significantly lower

605: \cite{cy}.

606: 

607: For comparison, we have also performed the void analysis on

608: randomly generated statistical configurations. We have chosen

609: two methods to generate such configurations.

610: 

611: \noindent$\it Method\ 1.$\quad  We use random-number generator to

612: assign a value of $\rho_i$ between 0 and 160 at site

613: $i$, for $i$ ranging over all sites on the lattice. We choose that

614: range because  the average value of $\rho_i$ simulated in the

615: foregoing at $T_c$ is around 78. We collect $5\times 10^3$

616: such configurations and call them the random sample.

617: 

618: \noindent$\it Method\ 2.$\quad Generate first a configuration on

619: the $L\times L$ sites of the lattice in the Ising model as in

620: [1]. Choose randomly a cell $i$ and transfer the hadron density

621: $\rho_i$ there to a $\it new$ configuration at the same cell

622: location $i$. Repeat this procedure $(L/\epsilon)^2$ times, each

623: time starting with a new uncorrelated configuration;

624: furthermore, each time  the transfer of $\rho_j$ is made to

625: the $j$th cell of the same $\it new$ configuration. At the end of

626: the $(L/\epsilon)^2$th transfer, we have completed the

627: construction of a $\it new$ configuration, which is regarded as a

628: mixed configuration. Then we start afresh and generate a new

629: mixed configuration,  adding to what we call the statistical sample.

630: Specifically, we use $L=288$ and $\epsilon=4$. There are

631: no correlations among the various cells in these configurations,

632: although the underlying dynamics that generates the original

633: configurations is that of the Ising model.

634: 

635: The results of our void analysis  on the random and

636: statistical samples are very similar. Scaling behavior is not

637: found until $\rho_0$ is nearly as large as the mean density

638: and then only for a narrow range of $\rho_0$ between 60 and 80.

639: This is very different from our results shown in Figs.\ 3 and

640: 6 that have a wide range of $\rho_0$ in which the scaling

641: behavior exists, beginning with $\rho_0\approx

642: \left<\rho\right>/2$.

643: 

644: Based on the above results we believe that dynamically

645: generated critical behavior in the experimental data can be

646: distinguished from the statistical background.

647: 

648: \section{Conclusion}

649: 

650: What we have demonstrated in this work is that critical

651: fluctuation in quark-hadron phase transition can be

652: observable in heavy-ion collisions, when appropriate

653: measures are sought for in the data analysis.  The details

654: of how we have simulated the configurations are not as

655: important as the insistence that a narrow $\Delta p_T$ cut

656: be made.  There is no chance that the experimental data at

657: RHIC can reveal any evidence of the pattern formation in

658: hadron density if such a cut in $p_T$ is not applied.

659: Scaling behavior is the canonical characteristics of critical

660: phenomena, so to discover its existence in the data of

661: heavy-ion collisions should be a primary area of

662: investigation for the signatures of quark-gluon plasma.

663: Since temperature is not directly measurable, and

664: fluctuations in multiplicities do not manifest themselves

665: naturally as in critical opalescence, our task is nontrivial and

666: must rely on the identification of observables that are

667: carefully constructed to reveal the scaling properties.  Of

668: course, if scaling is not found in the data, it could be that the

669: phase transition is of first order, or is a crossover of such

670: smoothness that no interesting fluctuations exist.  The

671: application of our method of analysis to the data can at

672: least shed some light on the nature of the phase transition.

673: 

674: There is a possibility that scaling behavior may exist even

675: in the absence of a second-order PT of the type discussed

676: here.  Such a possibility has been proposed earlier

677: \cite{hlp} as a manifestation of self-organized criticality

678: \cite{btw}.  Although the scaling discussed there is in

679: terms of cluster sizes, there is no doubt that a void

680: analysis can detect its signals, if it exists.  The method

681: proposed here should be sensitive to any hadronization

682: process that does not produce particles uniformly in a

683: short time interval.  Application of the method to the

684: RHIC data should be revealing whether or not scaling

685: behavior can be found.

686: 

687: \newpage

688: 

689: \section*{Acknowledgment}

690: One of us (RCH) wishes to acknowledge Dr.\ Pasi Huovinen

691: for his willingness to perform certain hydrodynamical

692: calculations and to transmit the results to us before

693: publication.  We are grateful to Prof.\ C.\ B.\ Yang for

694: communicating to us the preliminary result of his analysis

695: of the NA49 data.  This work was supported, in part,  by the U.\ S.\

696: Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-96ER40972,

697: the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada

698: and the Fonds FCAR of the Quebec Government.

699: 

700: 

701: 

702: \vspace{1cm}

703: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

704: 

705: %1

706: \bibitem{hz}R.\ C.\ Hwa, and Q.\ H.\ Zhang,  Phys.\ Rev.\ C

707: {\bf 62}, 054902 (2000). 

708: 

709: %2

710: \bibitem{cy}C.\ B.\ Yang, preliminary report (private

711: communication).

712: 

713: %3

714: \bibitem{hwu}R.\ C.\ Hwa, and Y.\ F.\ Wu, Phys.\ Rev.\ C

715: {\bf 60}, 054904 (1999). 

716: 

717: %4

718: \bibitem{ggp} S.\ Gavin, A.\ Gocksch, and R.\ D.\

719: Pisarski,  Phys.\ Rev.\  D{\bf 49}, 3079 (1994). 

720: 

721: %5

722: \bibitem{kr}K.\ Rajagopal, in {\it Quark-Gluon Plasma 2},

723: edited by R.\ C.\ Hwa, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).

724: 

725: %6

726: \bibitem{ng}N.\ Goldenfeld, {\it Lectures on Phase

727: Transitions and Renormalization Group}, (Addison-Wesley

728: Publ.\ Co., 1992)

729: 

730: %7

731: \bibitem{zc}Z.\ Cao, Y.\ Gao and R.\ C.\ Hwa, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf

732: 72}, 661 (1996).

733: 

734: %8

735: \bibitem{kh}K.\ Huang, {\it Statistical Mechanics}, 2nd

736: edition (Wiley \& Sons, Inc., New York, 1987).  

737:  

738: %9

739: \bibitem{ph}P.\ Huovinen (private communication).

740: 

741: %10

742: \bibitem{uw} U.\ Wolff, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 62}, 361

743: (1989).

744: 

745: %11

746: \bibitem{hlp}R.\ C.\ Hwa, C.\ S.\ Lam, and J.\ Pan, Phys.\

747: Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 72}, 820 (1994); R.\ C.\ Hwa and J.\ Pan,

748: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 50}, 2516 (1994).

749:     

750: %12

751: \bibitem{btw}P.\ Bak, C.\ Tang and K.\ Wiesenfeld, Phys.\

752: Rev.\ A {\bf 38}, 364 (1988). 

753: 

754: 

755: \end{thebibliography}

756: 

757: \newpage

758: \begin{center}

759: \section*{Figure Captions}

760: \end{center}

761: \begin{description}

762: 

763: \item[Fig.\ 1]\quad Option 1 in time-evolution, $S=5$: (a)

764: Scaling behavior of $\left<G_q\right>$, (b) Dependence of the

765: scaling exponent $\gamma_q$ on $q$.

766: 

767: \item[Fig.\ 2]\quad Option 2 in time-evolution, $S=50$: (a)

768: Scaling behavior of $\left<G_q\right>$, (b) Dependence of the

769: scaling exponent $\gamma_q$ on $q$.

770: 

771: \item[Fig.\ 3]\quad Dependences of $c$ on $\rho_0$ for the

772: two options.

773: 

774: \item[Fig.\ 4]\quad Option 1 in time-evolution, $S=5$: (a)

775: Scaling behavior of $S_q$, (b) Dependence of the

776: scaling exponent $\sigma_q$ on $q$.

777: 

778: \item[Fig.\ 5]\quad Option 2 in time-evolution, $S=50$: (a)

779: Scaling behavior of $S_q$, (b) Dependence of the

780: scaling exponent $\sigma_q$ on $q$.

781: 

782: \item[Fig.\ 6]\quad Dependences of $s$ on $\rho_0$ for the

783: two options.

784: 

785: \end{description}

786: 

787: 

788: 

789: 

790: 

791: \end{document}

792: