1: %\documentstyle[aps,prl,epsfig]{revtex}
2: %\documentstyle[aps,prl,epsfig,singlecolomn,12pt]{revtex}
3: %\documentclass[aps,prl,epsfig]{revtex}
4: %\documentclass[aps,prl,epsfig,twocolumn]{revtex}
5: %\documentclass[prc,a4paper,12pt,groupedaddress,tightenlines]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[onecolumn,prl,showpacs,floats,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,epsfig,12pt]{revtex4}
7: \documentclass[onecolumn,prc,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb,epsfig,10pt]{revtex4}
8: \usepackage{epsf,epsfig,graphicx}
9: %\pagestyle{plain}
10: \begin{document}
11: \titlepage
12: \title{Suspicion on Engrafting HBT From Astronomy to Heavy Ion Collision }
13: \author{ X. Sun\\
14: Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing 100039, China\\
15: Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China\\
16: Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University,
17: Beijing 100084, China\\
18: Center of High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,
19: China }
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: %\setlength{\baselineskip}{16pt}\
23: HBT method in astronomy and heavy ion collision is contrasted in
24: present article.Some differences are found and validity of using HBT
25: in heavy ion collision is suspected.
26: \end{abstract}
27: \pacs{25.75.Nq,25.75.Dw}
28: \maketitle
29: %\noindent ${\bf PACS: 25.75, 23.70.E}$
30: \newpage
31:
32:
33: \section{Introduction}
34: The method of two-particle intensity interferometry was discovered
35: in the early 1950's by Hanbury Brown and Twiss (HBT) \cite{HBT}
36: who applied it to the measurement of the angular diameter of stars
37: and other astronomical objects.
38:
39:
40:
41: Then several
42: authors~\cite{hbt-review,pratt-flow-and-lifetime,rischke-lifetime,rischke-gyulassy-lifetime,bertsch89,shuryak-lifetime}
43: have proposed HBT studies to probe source structure in heavy ion
44: collision.
45:
46:
47:
48: The spirit of this method is reviewed and explained by Ulrich
49: Heinz\cite{heinz99}: "two random point sources $a$ and $b$ on a
50: distant emitter, separated by the distance $R$, emit identical
51: particles with identical energies $E_p=(m^2+p^2)^{1/2}$ which, after
52: travelling a distance $L$, are measured by two detectors 1 and 2,
53: separated by the distance
54: %
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
56: \begin{figure}[ht]
57: \centerline{\epsfxsize=13cm\epsffile{Fig1.eps}} \caption{Measurement
58: of the separation $\protect\bbox{R}$ of two
59: sources $a$ and $b$ by correlating the intensities in detectors 1
60: and 2 at varying distances $\protect\bbox{d}$. {\bf a}: The general
61: scheme. {\bf b}: The specific situation in astronomy. {\bf c}: The
62: specific situation in particle physics.
63: \label{F0}}
64: \end{figure}
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66: %
67: $\bbox{d}$ (see Figure~\ref{F0}a). $L$ should to be much larger than
68: $R$ or $d$. The total amplitude measured at detector 1 is then
69: \begin{equation}
70: \label{B1}
71: A_1 = {1\over L}\Bigl( \alpha\, e^{i(pr_{1a}+\phi_a)}
72: + \beta\, e^{i(pr_{1b}+\phi_b)} \Bigr),
73: \end{equation}
74: where $\alpha,\beta$ are the amplitudes emitted by points $a$ and
75: $b$, $\phi_a,\phi_b$ are their random phases, $r_{1a},r_{1b}$ are
76: their distances to detector 1. For some time ,the two-particle
77: intensity correlation function is thus given by
78: \begin{equation}
79: \label{B5}
80: C(\bbox{R},\bbox{d}) =
81: {\langle I_1 I_2\rangle \over \langle I_1\rangle \langle I_2\rangle}
82: ={\langle A_1 A_1^\dagger A_2 A_2^\dagger \rangle \over \langle A_1 A_1^\dagger\rangle \langle A_2 A_2^\dagger\rangle}= 1 + {2 \vert\alpha\vert^2 \vert\beta\vert^2 \over
83: (\vert\alpha\vert^2 + \vert\beta\vert^2)^2}
84: \cos\Bigl(p(r_{1a}-r_{2a}-r_{1b}+r_{2b})\Bigr).
85: \end{equation}
86: For large $L\gg R,d$, the argument of the second, oscillating term
87: becomes
88: \begin{equation}
89: \label{B6}
90: r_{1a}-r_{2a}-r_{1b}+r_{2b} \longrightarrow {d\,R\over L}
91: \Bigl( \cos(\bbox{d},\bbox{R}) - \cos(\bbox{d},\bbox{L})
92: \cos(\bbox{R},\bbox{L}) \Bigr).
93: \end{equation}
94: Note the symmetry of this expression in $d$ and $R$, the
95: separations of the detectors and of the emitters."this symmetry is
96: lost in the two practically relevant limits:
97:
98: \begin{enumerate}
99:
100: \item
101: In case of $R\gg d$,the cosine-term in (\ref{B5}) reduces to
102: $\cos(\bbox{d}{\cdot}(\bbox{p}_a{-}\bbox{p}_b))$, with
103: $\bbox{p}_{a,b} = p\, \bbox{e}_{a,b}$.
104:
105: \item
106: In case of $R\ll d$,Then (see Figure~\ref{F0}c) the cosine-term in
107: (\ref{B5}) becomes $\cos(\bbox{R}{\cdot}(\bbox{p}_1{-}\bbox{p}_2))$.
108:
109: \end{enumerate}
110: %
111: So we can get the intensity correlation function
112: \begin{equation}
113: \label{B7}
114: C(\bbox{p}_1-\bbox{p}_2) =1+
115: \int d^3R\, \rho(\bbox{R})\,
116: \cos(\bbox{R}\cdot(\bbox{p}_1-\bbox{p}_2))\, .
117: \end{equation}
118:
119: for a continuum of a static sources described by a distribution
120: $\rho(\bbox{R})$ of their relative distances.
121:
122: The upper is deduction in theory.Now let's see how to get the
123: correlation function in experiment.\cite{starpion}"Experimentally,
124: the two-particle correlation function is obtained from the ratio
125: $C_2({\bf q}) = A({\bf q})/B({\bf q})$ (normalized to unity at
126: large ${\bf q}$), where $A({\bf q})$ is the measured two-pion
127: distribution of pair momentum difference ${\bf q=p_2-p_1}$, and
128: $B({\bf q})$ is the mixed background
129: distribution~\cite{event-mixing}, calculated in the same way using
130: pairs of particles taken from different events."Note ${\bf
131: p_2,p_1}$ is the primary momentum of particle,i.e. the momentum
132: of the particle when the particle is nearest to the source.It
133: corresponds to the momentum when the particle leaves the source
134: in theory.
135:
136: Really,the variable used in correlation is a Lorentz invariable
137: $Q_{inv}$.\cite{starpion}"$Q_{inv}=\sqrt{({\bf p}_1-{\bf
138: p}_2)^2-(E_1-E_2)^2}$".After transforming (\ref{B7}) and $C_2({\bf
139: q})$ into function of $Q_{inv}$,it is believed that relationship
140: between experiment and theory is established.
141:
142:
143:
144:
145:
146:
147:
148:
149:
150: \section{essentials in HBT and Suspicion}
151: Correlation function in (\ref{B5}) contains five variables
152: $\bbox{R}$,$\bbox{d}$,$p_1$,$p_2$ and $L$.Correlation function in
153: (\ref{B7}) contains four variables $\bbox{d}$,$p_1$,$p_2$ and $L$.
154: The diminishing of $\bbox{R}$ is caused by the integral over
155: $\bbox{R}$.The process using HBT equals the process retrievinng
156: these variables from experiment.
157:
158:
159:
160: In astronomy, $\bbox{d}$ is known quantity , $L$ can be got from
161: other astronomical method.Although measuring $p_1$ and $p_2$ is
162: difficult,we can cancel them by integral over them that is recording
163: all particles entering the detector in experiment.So all variables
164: are got from experiment and HBT succeeds in astronomy.
165:
166:
167:
168:
169: In heavy ion collision ,in order to retrieve the correlation
170: function from experiment,these four variables $\bbox{d}$,$p_1$,$p_2$
171: and $L$ must be fixed.We can get $p_1$ and $p_2$ from detector
172: easily.The following and last question is to get $\bbox{d}$ and
173: $L$,in other words,where the position the particles are detected is.
174: The thought that we can cancel $\bbox{d}$ and $L$ after the integral
175: over them in experiment is wrong because we can't place point
176: detectors throughout the space and even if we place point detectors
177: throughout the space in ideal we still can't make this integral in
178: experiment just because that particle entering the second detector
179: after entering the first detector has changed its quantum property
180: by the first detector so (\ref{B1}) becomes invalid. Another opinion
181: regarding the first point left in TPC as the position the particle
182: be detected is also wrong because that the reconstructed track of
183: particle is classical and the point is on this classical track ,as
184: well as (\ref{B1}) becomes invalid.
185:
186: If $\bbox{d}$ and $L$ can't be got from experiment,HBT can't be used
187: in heavy ion collision.Now let's see what we got from experiment in
188: \cite{starpion}.The process in experiment is :firstly ,determining
189: the momentum and position of particle by the points left in
190: detector;secondly, reversing the particle along the track,by the way
191: the classical concept of orbit are needed,to the nearest point in
192: the track to the source and calculating the momentum at the
193: point;thirdly,obtaining
194: the correlation function $C_2({\bf q}) = A({\bf q})/B({\bf q})$ (normalized to
195: unity at large ${\bf q}$), where $A({\bf q})$ is the measured
196: two-pion distribution of pair momentum difference ${\bf q=p_2-p_1}$,
197: and $B({\bf q})$ is the mixed background
198: distribution~\cite{event-mixing}, calculated in the same way using
199: pairs of particles taken from different events. From these process
200: we can know the momentum used in calculating the correlation
201: function is the momentum when particle is in the point that is
202: nearest to the source.This point corresponds to the point in which
203: the particle emits from the source in theory.
204:
205:
206: Now we can reply the question how to get $\bbox{d}$ and $L$,in
207: other words,where the position the particles are detected is .In
208: \cite{starpion},the particles are detected on the surface of the
209: source and $L$=0 ,$\bbox{d}\sim 0$. So the deduction in
210: \cite{heinz99} is disabled here.
211:
212: \section{formula for experiment}
213: Now let's see what we have done in data analysis in \cite{starpion}.
214: Define $P(\theta,\varphi,\tau)$ is the emitting probability of the
215: source where $\theta,\varphi$ is polar angle and azimuth angle
216: respectively and $\tau$ is the proper time of the source. For an
217: event with $M$ particles considered,$n_s,_i(q,q+dq)$ is the number
218: of particles whose momentum difference with the i-th particle
219: locates $q$ and $q+dq$,where $q$ is ${\bf q=p_2-p_1}$ or $q_{inv}$
220: in different cases. $n_m,_i(q,q+dq)$ is the number of particles in
221: other event whose momentum difference with the i-th particle locates
222: $q$ and $q+dq$, it is like $n_s,_i(q,q+dq)$ expect that
223: $n_m,_i(q,q+dq)$ is for different events whereas $n_s,_i(q,q+dq)$
224: for same event.
225:
226: For a completely random source , such as an artifical source
227: produced by computer obeying the distribution
228: $P(\theta,\varphi,\tau)$ of real data, it is easy to know
229:
230: \begin{eqnarray}
231: \label{average}
232: \bar{n}_s,_i(q,q+dq)=\bar{n}_m,_i(q,q+dq)\\
233: C_2(q)=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^M\bar{n}_s,_i(q,q+dq)}{\sum_{i=0}^M\bar{n}_m,_i(q,q+dq)}=1
234: \end{eqnarray}
235: in which average is over all events. By now,it is clear that the
236: correlation function has no direct relation with the emitting
237: probability $P(\theta,\varphi,\tau)$.
238:
239: In real data,if there are some mechanisms can change
240: $n_s,_i(q,q+dq)$ to $n_s,_i(q,q+dq)+n_c,_i(q)$,whereas the sum
241: number of particles and the distribution have not changed so
242: $\bar{n}_m,_i(q,q+dq)$ have not changed, we can get
243: \begin{eqnarray}
244: \label{mechanism}
245: C_2(q)=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^M[\bar{n}_s,_i(q,q+dq)+\bar{n}_c,_i(q)]}{\sum_{i=0}^M\bar{n}_m,_i(q,q+dq)}
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: $\bar{n}_m,_i(q,q+dq)$ can be got from simulation by computer
248: after knowing the distribution
249: $P(\theta,\varphi,\tau)$.$n_c,_i(q)$ is a variable connecting to
250: physical process on the surface of the source i.e. what happens
251: when particle is produced from partons. Let $q=\bf
252: q=p_2-p_1$,(\ref{mechanism}) become the result in \cite{starpion}.
253: \section{mechanisms produce $n_c,_i(q)$ for small $q$}
254: As what are interesting is the performance of correlation function
255: at $q \sim 0$,i.e. the difference of momentums is small,only this
256: part is discussed here.
257:
258: The meaning of $n_c,_i(q)$ is the variance of number of
259: particles whose momentum $p$ satisfies $p-p_i=q$ from completely
260: random distribution.If the i-th particle was produced,the
261: probability of production of particle whose momentum is close to
262: $p_i$ would increase.In this case $n_c,_i(q)>0$.Now if the i-th
263: particle was produced,that probability would decrease.In this
264: case $n_c,_i(q)<0$.
265:
266: Let's see some mechanisms making $n_c,_i(q)$ positive or negative.
267: On the surface of the source,if a fermion is produced,it will
268: hold a state of specified momentum and prevent particle of this
269: kind produced after it entering this state.
270: Qualitatively,$n_c,_i(q)$ will become negative. Interaction will
271: also affect $n_c,_i(q)$.If there an attractive force between a
272: kind of particles,$n_c,_i(q)$ will become positive,vice
273: versa,attractive force leading negative $n_c,_i(q)$.
274:
275: \section{Conclusions}
276: The most important problem in engrafting HBT from astronomy to
277: heavy ion collision is the position where particle is detected can
278: not correspond to corresponding variables in quondam theory.The
279: momentum used in HBT is that when particle leave the source.At
280: this point $L$=0 ,$\bbox{d}\sim 0$. So the deduction is disabled
281: for experiment.
282:
283: {\bf Acknowledgments:} We thank Dr J. Fu for supporting us in many
284: respects and their constant helps. We thank Prof. J. Li and Z. Zhang
285: for the earnest supervision. We thank Prof.Shaomin Chen and Yuanning
286: Gao for the fruitful discussions in this work. The work was
287: supported in part by the grants NSFC 10447123.
288:
289:
290:
291:
292:
293: %\bibliography{clps}
294:
295: \begin{thebibliography}{11}
296: \bibitem{HBT}
297: Hanbury Brown R, Twiss RQ. {\it Nature} 178:1046 (1956)
298: \bibitem{heinz99} { U. Heinz and B. Jacak,
299: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 49}, 529(1999)}
300: \bibitem{starpion} {STAR Collaboration (C. Adler et al.) ,
301: Phys.Rev.Lett.{\bf 87}:082301(2001)}
302: \bibitem{event-mixing}
303: G.I. Kopylov, Phys. Lett. {\bf 50B}, 472 (1974).
304: \bibitem{hbt-review}
305: W.~Bauer, C.K.~Gelbke, and S. Pratt, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 42}, 77 (1992);
306: U. Heinz and B. Jacak, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 49}, 529 (1999);
307: U.A. Wiedemann and U. Heinz, Phys. Rep. {\bf 319}, 145 (1999).
308: \bibitem{pratt-flow-and-lifetime}
309: S. Pratt, T. Cs\"org\"o and J. Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. {\bf C42}, 2646 (1990).
310: \bibitem{rischke-lifetime}
311: D.H. Rischke, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A610}, 88c (1996).
312: \bibitem{rischke-gyulassy-lifetime}
313: D.H. Rischke and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A608}, 479 (1996).
314: \bibitem{bertsch89}
315: G. Bertsch, M. Gong, and M. Tohyama, Phys. Rev. {\bf C37}, 1896 (1988).
316: G. Bertsch, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A498}, 173c (1989).
317: \bibitem{shuryak-lifetime}
318: C.M. Hung and E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 4003 (1995).
319: \end{thebibliography}
320: \end{document}
321: