1: %\documentstyle[11pt,epsfig]{article} 

2: \documentclass[prl,twocolumn,aps]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{epsfig}

4: \begin{document}

5: 

6: \title{\bf Particle emission in hydrodynamics: a problem needing a solution}

7: \author{F. Grassi}

8: \address{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Universidade de S\~ao Paulo, 

9: C. P. 66318, 05315-970 S\~ao Paulo-SP, Brazil}

10: 

11: 

12: 

13: \begin{abstract}

14: A survey of various mechanisms for particle emission in hydrodynamics is 

15: presented.

16: First, in the case of sudden freeze out,

17:  the problem of negative contributions in the Cooper-Frye formula  

18: and ways out are presented.

19: Then the separate chemical and thermal freeze out scenario is described  and

20: the necessity of

21: its inclusion in a hydrodynamical code is discussed.

22: Finally, 

23: we show how to formulate continuous particle emission in hydrodynamics 

24: and

25: discuss extensively its consistency with data. We point out in various cases

26:  that the interpretation of data is quite influenced by the choice of the particle emission mechanism.

27: 

28: 

29: 

30: \end{abstract}

31: \maketitle

32: 

33: 

34: \section{1. Introduction}

35: Historically, the hydrodynamical model was suggested in 1953 by Landau

36: \cite{landau}

37:  as a way to improve Fermi statistical model

38: \cite{fermi}. For decades, hydrodynamics was used to describe collisions involving elementary particles and nuclei. But it really got wider acceptation with the advent of relativistic (truly) heavy ion collisions, due to the large number of particles created and its success in reproducing data.

39: Brazil has a good tradition with hydrodynamics. 

40: Many aspects of it have been treated by various persons. 

41: For illustration, the following papers can be quoted.

42: Initial conditions were studied in \cite{ha97a,ag02}. Solutions of the hydrodynamical equations 

43: using symmetries \cite{ha85,cs03} or numerical

44: \cite{el99,ag01} were investigated. The equation of dense matter was

45: derived in  \cite{me93,ag03}.

46: Comparison with data was performed in \cite{ha88,pa98,pa02,gr00,gr98,gr99a,

47: gr99b}. 

48: The emission mechanism was considered in \cite{ha91,na92,gr95,ma99,ar01,yogiro}.

49: In this paper, I concentrate on the problem of particle emission in 

50: hydrodynamics. 	In the Fermi description, energy is stored in a small volume, 

51: particles are produced according to the laws of

52: statistical equilibrium at the instant of equilibrium  and they immediately stop interacting, i.e. they freeze out. Landau took up these ideas: 

53: energy is stored in a small volume, 

54: particles are produced according to the laws of

55: statistical equilibrium at the instant of equilibrium, expansion occurs 

56: (modifying particle numbers in agreement with the laws of conservation)

57: and stops when the mean free path becomes of order the linear dimension of the system, which  led to a decoupling temperature of order the pion 

58: mass for a certain energy and slowly decreasing with increasing energy.

59: In today's hydrodynamical description, two Lorentz contracted nuclei collide.

60:  Complex processes take place in the initial stage leading to a state of 

61: thermalized hot dense matter at some  proper time $\tau_0$. This matter evolves according to the laws of hydrodynamics. 

62: As the expansion proceeds, the fluid becomes cooler and more diluted

63:  until interactions stop and particles free-stream towards the detectors.

64: In the following, I review various possible descriptions for this last stage of the hydrodynamical description. 

65: The usual mechanism for particle emission in hydrodynamics

66: is sudden freeze out so I will use it as a  point of comparison.  I will start in section 2,

67:  reminding what it is, some of its problems and

68: ways outs.

69: There is another particle emission scenario which is a small extension of this idea of sudden freeze out: the separate chemical and thermal freeze out

70: scenario. It has become used a lot e.g. to analyse data. So I will discuss 

71: in section 3

72: what it is, its alternatives and how to incorporate it in hydrodynamics.

73: Continuous emission is a  

74: mechanism for particle emission that we proposed some years ago.

75: As the very name suggests, it is not ``sudden'' like the usual

76: freeze out mechanism. I will explain what it is precisely in

77: section 4 and how  it describes data compared to freeze out.

78: Finally I will conclude in section 5.

79: 

80: 

81: 

82: 

83: \section{2. Sudden freeze out}

84: 

85: \subsection{2.1 The traditional approach and its problems}

86: 

87: Traditionally in hydrodynamics, the following simple picture is used. Matter expands until a certain dilution criterion is satisfied. Often the criterion used is that a certain temperature has been reached, typically around 140 MeV in the spirit of Landau's case. In some more modern version such as \cite{hi}, 

88: a certain freeze out density must be reached. There also exist 

89: attempts \cite{he87,le88,hu98,leh90,na92}

90: to incorporate more physical informations about the freeze out, for example 

91: type i particles stop interacting when their average time between interactions $\tau^i_{scatt}$ becomes greater than the fluid expansion time and 

92: average time to reach the border.

93: When the freeze out criterion is reached, it is assumed that all particles stop interacting suddenly (this is called ``freeze out'') and fly freely towards the detectors. As a consequence, observables only reflect the conditions 

94: (temperature, chemical potential, fluid velocity) met by matter late in its evolution.

95: 

96: In the sudden freeze out model, to actually compute particle spectra and

97: get predictions for the observables, 

98: the Cooper-Frye formula (\ref{eq:CF}) \cite{CFart} may be used.

99: 

100: \begin{equation}

101: \frac{E d^3N}{dp^3}= 

102: \int_{T_{f.out}} d\sigma_{\mu} p^{\mu} f(x,p).

103: \label{eq:CF}

104: \end{equation} 

105:  $d\sigma_{\mu}$ is the normal vector to this surface,

106: $p^\mu$ the particle momentum

107: and $f$ its  distribution function. Usually one assumes a Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac distribution for this $f$.

108: 

109: 

110: 

111: This sudden freeze out approach is often used however it is known to have some bad features. I will mention two. First when using the Cooper-Frye formula,

112: we sometime meet negative terms ($d\sigma_{\mu} p^\mu \leq 0$) corresponding to particles re-entering the fluid. However since they presumably

113: had stopped interacting (being in the frozen out region),

114: they should not re-enter the fluid and start interacting again.

115: \begin{figure}[htbp]

116: \begin{center}

117: \epsfig{file=fig1_evt.eps,height=8.5cm,angle=-90} 

118: \end{center}

119: \caption[CF]{In Cooper-Frye formula, the expression

120: $p^{\mu}d\sigma_{\mu}$ may be negative.

121: \label{fig:cffig}}

122: \end{figure}

123: 

124: So usually one removes these negative terms from the calculations as being unphysical.

125: However by doing this, one removes 

126: baryon number, energy and momentum from the calculation and violates

127:  conservation laws. It is not a negligible problem, as shown in the figure~\ref{fig:rischke}.

128: \begin{figure}[htbp]

129: \begin{center}

130: \epsfig{file=9602011.f03.ps,height=7.cm,angle=-90}

131: \end{center}

132: \caption[Negative contributions]{ 

133: Rapidity distribution of particles freezing out

134: on the

135: $T_{f.out}=0.4 T_0$ isotherm in the Landau model. The solid line corresponds

136: to all the  contributions in  formula 1, the dashed-dotted line

137: represents  contributions from space-like parts of the isotherm and the dashed line

138:  contributions from time-like  parts  \cite{be96,ri98}.

139: In this last case, note the negative contributions at y=0.

140: \label{fig:rischke}}

141: \end{figure}

142: In the code SPHERIO~\cite{ag01},

143: it can be a 20\% overestimate of particle number. 

144:  There are some ways to avoid these violations  but none is completely satisfying~\cite{ma99}.

145: 

146: %Even if one accepts this sudden freeze out picture, two separate freeze outs seem necessary. This is covered in section 5.

147: 

148: The second problem is the following: do particles really {\em suddenly} stop 

149: interacting when they reach a certain hypersurface? Intuitively no, 

150: this must happen over a mean free path. This is corroborated by results from

151: simulations of microscopical models\cite{Bra,Sor,Bas}: 

152: the shape of the region where particles last interacted is generally not a sharp surface as assumed for sudden 

153: freeze outs. Some exceptions might be heavy particles in heavy systems or the

154: phase transition hypersurface.

155: 

156: 

157: We postpone the discussion of the second problem to section 4 and turn to the first problem.

158: 

159: 

160: \subsection{2.2 Improved freeze out}

161: 

162: In this section, we adopt the sudden freeze out picture and seek ways to incorporate conservation laws~\cite{ma99}.

163: 

164: We suppose that prior to crossing the freeze out surface $\sigma$, particles have a thermalized distribution function and we know the baryonic current and energy momentum tensor, $n_0^{\mu}$ and $T_0^{\mu \nu}$. We suppose also that after crossing the surface, the distribution function is

165: \begin{equation}

166: f^*_{FO}(x,p;d\sigma^\mu)  

167: = 

168: f_{FO}(x,p) \Theta(p^\mu\ d\sigma_\mu) 

169: \label{eq:cut}

170: \end{equation}

171: The $\Theta$ function selects among particles which are emitted only 

172: only those with $d\sigma_{\mu} p^{\mu}>0$.

173: This equation is solved in the rest frame of the gas doing

174: freeze out (RFG) 

175: in figure~\ref{fig:selec} . We see that according to the value of

176:  $v={d\sigma_0/

177: d\sigma_x}_{RFG}$, 

178: a region more or less big in the

179:  $p_{\perp}-p^x$ space can be excluded. 

180: \begin{figure}[htbp]

181: \begin{center}

182: \epsfig{file=fig1_csernai.ps,height=5.cm}

183: \caption{ The solution to the equation  $d\sigma_{\mu} p^{\mu}=0$ 

184: for

185: $v$

186: = 0,65, 0 and -0,35 is given by the left  hyperbola, the vertical axis

187: and right hyperbola respectivaly. 

188:  The permitted region is 

189: localized to the right of the curve in each of these three cases.

190: The dashed lines  correspond to the  case of

191: massless  particles.}

192: \label{fig:selec}

193: \end{center}

194: \end{figure}

195: 

196: We do not know what the shape of

197: $f_{FO}(x,p)$ is. To simplify, we first suppose that

198: \begin{equation}

199: f_{FO}(x,p)  

200: = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} exp \left( \frac{-p_\mu u^\mu+\mu}{T} \right)

201: \end{equation}

202: with $u^\mu=\gamma(1,v,0,0)$ and $\mu$ is the baryonic potential.\\ 

203: This does not mean that $f_{FO}$ is thermalized but simply that

204: we choose a parametrization of the thermalized type.

205: This parametrization is arbitrary, we discuss later how to improve our ansatz.

206: For the moment we use it to illustrate how to proceed in order not to violate conservation laws when using the Cooper-Frye formula.

207: 

208: 

209: 

210: It is possible to find expressions for the baryonic current, energy momentum

211: tensor and entropy current corresponding to \ref{eq:cut}

212: in terms of Bessel-like functions  and for massless particules, even analytical

213: expressions as function of $v$, $T$ e $\mu$ \cite{ma99}.

214: 

215: 

216: To determine the parameters $v$,T and $\mu$ for matter on the post-freeze out 

217: side of  $\sigma$,

218: we need to solve the conservation equations\\

219: \centerline{$[N^\mu d\sigma_\mu]=0\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,[T^{0\mu}d\sigma_\mu]=0\,\,

220: \,\,\,\,\,\,[T^{x\mu}d\sigma_\mu]=0$,}

221: as function of quantities  for matter on the pre-freeze out side,

222:  $v_0$, $T_0$ e $\mu_0$.

223: This being done, we still need to check that\\

224: \centerline{$[S^\mu d\sigma_\mu]\geq0$ or $R=\frac{S^\mu d\sigma_\mu}

225: {S_0^\mu d\sigma_\mu} \geq 1$}

226: i.e. entropy can only increase when crossing  $\sigma$.

227: Generally, these equations need to be solved numerically but for massless particles, they have an analytical solution  \cite{ma99}.

228: For illustration, we show this solution for the case of a plasma

229: with an MIT bag equation of state in figure~\ref{fig:conserv}.

230: \begin{figure}

231: \begin{center}

232: \epsfig{file=fig2_csernai.ps,height=5.5cm}\hfill

233: \epsfig{file=fig3_csernai.ps,height=5.5cm}\hfill

234: \epsfig{file=fig4_csernai.ps,height=5.5cm}

235: \end{center}

236: \caption[solution]{ Solution of conservation laws in the case of a plasma.\\

237: Top: $v$ as function of 

238: $v_0$ (solid line) for 

239: a) $n_0=1.2\,fm^{-3}, T_0=60\,MeV, \Lambda_B \equiv B^{1/4}=225\,MeV$,

240: b) $n_0=0.1\,fm^{-3}, T_0=60\,MeV, \Lambda_B =80\,MeV$,

241: c) $n_0=1.2\,fm^{-3}, T_0=60\,MeV, \Lambda_B =0\,MeV$.

242: (Dashed lines: velocity of pos-freeze out baryonic flow). \\

243: Middle: baryonic density

244: $n$ as function of $n_0$ for $v_0=0.5$, $T_0=50\,MeV$,

245: a) $\Lambda_B =80\,MeV$ (continuous line), 

246: b) $\Lambda_B =120\,MeV$ (dashed-dotted line), 

247: c) $\Lambda_B =160\,MeV$ (dashed line).\\

248: Bottom : $R$, ratio of entropy currents for   post and

249: pre-freeze matter as  function of  $T_0$ for

250: a) $n_0=0.1\,fm^{-3},v_0=0.5\,MeV, \Lambda_B =80\,MeV$ (solid line), 

251: b) $n_0=0.5\,fm^{-3},v_0=0.5\,MeV, \Lambda_B =80\,MeV$ (dashed line),  

252: c)  $n_0=1.2\,fm^{-3},v_0=0.5\,MeV, \Lambda_B =225\,MeV$ (dotted line).}

253: \label{fig:conserv}

254: \end{figure}

255: An interesting result can be seen on the top figure. Normally

256: when  using a  Cooper-Frye formula, the velocity of matter 

257: pre and post freeze out is assumed to be the same.

258:  However in the  figure, one sees that when imposing conservation laws,

259:  matter may be  acelerated in a  subtantial way. For example in case a), 

260: $v_0=0.2$ implies $v_{flow}=0.4$ and $v=0.6$. 

261: In term of effective temperature, there was an increase of

262:  60\%.

263: 

264: This example illustrates the  importance of taking into account

265: conservation laws when crossing $\sigma$. However, the choice of

266:  $f_{FO}$ as being parametrized

267: in the same way as a thermalized distribution is arbitrary as we mentioned already.

268: So we now study a more physical way of computing this function.

269: 

270: Consider an infinite tube with the $x<0$ part filled with  matter and the

271:  $x>0$ part empty. At t=0, we remove the  partition at  $x=0$ and  matter

272:  expands in  vacuum.

273: Suppose we remove the particles on the right hand side and put them back on the

274: left hand side continuously so as to get a stationary flow, with a rarefaction wave propagating to the left of the matter.

275:  

276: In the spirit of the continuous emission model presented below, 

277: the distribution function of matter has two

278:  components,

279: $f_{free}$ and $f_{int}$. Suppose that $f_{free}(x=0,p)=0$  and

280: $f_{int}(x=0,p)=f_{therm}((x=0,p)$.

281: A simple  model  for the fluid evolution is 

282: \begin{eqnarray}

283: \partial_x f_{int}(x,\vec{p})   dx &=& - \Theta(p^\mu d\hat{\sigma}_\mu) 

284:                                    \frac{\cos \theta_{\vec{p}} }{\lambda}

285:            f_{int}(x,\vec{p})   dx,\nonumber

286:  \   \\ 

287: \partial_x f_{free}(x,\vec{p})  dx &=& + \Theta(p^\mu d\hat{\sigma}_\mu) 

288:                                    \frac{\cos \theta_{\vec{p}} }{\lambda}

289:            f_{int}(x,\vec{p})   dx.

290: \end{eqnarray}

291: where $\cos \theta_{\vec{P}} = \frac{p_{x}}{p}$ in the rest frame of the rarefaction wave. A solution for these equations is

292: \begin{equation}

293: f_{int}(x,\vec{p}) =  f_{therm}(x=0,\vec{p}) 

294: \exp \left[ - \Theta(p^\mu d\hat{\sigma}_\mu) 

295:               \frac{\cos \theta_{\vec{p}} }{\lambda}  x \right].

296: \end{equation}

297: and

298: \begin{eqnarray}

299: f_{free}(x,\vec{p}) & = & f_{therm}(x=0,\vec{p}) \times \nonumber \\

300: & & \left\{1-\exp\left[-\Theta(p^\mu d\hat{\sigma}_\mu)

301: \frac{\cos\theta_{\vec{p}}}{\lambda}x\right]\right\} \nonumber \\

302: & = & f_{therm}(x=0,\vec{p})  - f_{int}(x,\vec{p}) 

303: \end{eqnarray}

304: We see that  $f_{free}$  tends to the cut  thermalized distribution we saw above when 

305:   $x \longrightarrow \infty$.

306: In this model,  the particle density does not change with $x$ but 

307: particles with  {$p^\mu d\hat{\sigma}_\mu  > 0$

308:  pass gradually from  $f_{int}$ to $f_{free}$. 

309:  

310: To improve this model, we consider

311: \begin{eqnarray}

312: \partial_x f_{int}(x,\vec{p}) dx & = & - \Theta(p^\mu d\hat{\sigma}_\mu) 

313:                                    \frac{\cos \theta_{\vec{p}} }{\lambda}

314:            f_{int}(x,\vec{p})   dx \nonumber \\

315:                    &  &+\left[ f_{eq}(x,\vec{p}) -  f_{int}(x,\vec{p})\right]

316:            \frac{1}{\lambda'} dx, 

317: \end{eqnarray}

318: 

319: \begin{equation}

320: \partial_x f_{free}(x,\vec{p}) dx = + \Theta(p^\mu d\hat{\sigma}_\mu) 

321:                                    \frac{\cos \theta_{\vec{p}} }{\lambda}

322:            f_{int}(x,\vec{p})  dx.

323: \end{equation}

324: The additional term in

325: $f_{int}$ includes the tendency for this function to tend towards 

326: an equilibrium function due to collisions

327: with a relaxation distance  $\lambda'$.

328: Due to the loss of energy,

329:  momentum and  particle number, $f_{eq}$ is not the initial thermalized 

330: function but its parameters

331: $n_{eq}(x)$, 

332: $T_{eq}(x)$ and $u^\mu_{eq}(x)$ can be  determined using conservation laws.

333: %In the case of immediate

334: % re-termalization for  $f_{int}$, it is possible to rewrite the loss terms

335: %in term of  Bessel like function in general and

336: %for massless particles.

337: %These can be used to compute

338: % $f_{int}$

339: %at $x+dx$ from its value at $x$. 

340: %Once this is done, 

341: % $f_{free}$ can be computed as well. 	]

342: In the case of immediate re-thermalization ($f_{int}=f_{eq}$), for

343: a gas of massless particles with zero net baryon number, the solution is shown in

344:  figure~\ref{fig:dist}.

345: \begin{figure}[htbp]

346: \begin{center}

347: \epsfig{file=fig_csernai.eps,height=6.cm}

348: \caption{ $f_{free}(p_x)$ ( equivalent to the

349: $f^*_{FO}$ in the previous section), computed at

350: $p_y=0, x=100\lambda, T_0=130\,MeV$.}

351: \label{fig:dist}

352: \end{center}

353: \end{figure}

354: One sees that the

355:  solution $f_{free}$  is not a thermalized type cut function.

356: 

357: Even more importantly, this distribution exibits a  curvature which reminds

358: the data on  $p_{\perp}$ distribution for  pions. 

359: %Isto

360: %mostra a imp\^ortancia de tratar coretamente o freeze out para poder analisar % os dados.

361: Other explaination for this  curvature are transverse

362:  expansion or  resonance decays. On the basis of our work, it is difficult

363: to trust totally  analyses

364: which extracts thermal freeze out temperatures and fluid  velocities

365:  using only  transverse expansion and resonance decays. 

366: 

367: More details and

368: improvement on how to compute the post freeze out distribution function were 

369: presented in various papers \cite{an99,ma99b,ma03,cs04,ta04}.

370: 

371: Finally, it is interesting to note that models that combine hydrodynamics with 

372: a cascade code  also suffer from the problem of non-conservation of energy-momentum and charge \cite{tea01} or inconsistency

373: \cite{du00}, as discussed in \cite{bu03}.

374: 

375: %Finally, we note that in this model,

376: %all particlas   freeze out 

377: %when

378: % $x \longrightarrow \infty$, 

379: %, which improve the description in relation to the cut thermalized case.

380: %However,

381: %one cannot stop here since freeze out must occur on a finite distance.

382: %\cite{csernai4}. 

383:  

384: \vspace*{0.5cm}

385: 

386: \section{3. Separate freeze outs}

387: 

388: In this section, we suppose that the sudden freeze out picture can be used and see how well it describes data.

389: 

390: \subsection{3.1 Chemical freeze out}

391: 

392: 

393: 

394: Strangeness production plays a special part in ultrarelativistic

395: nuclear collisions since its increase might be evidence for the creation

396: of quark gluon plasma. Many experiments therefore collect information on strangeness production.

397: 

398: We can consider for example the results obtained by the CERN collaborations

399: WA85 (collision S+W),  WA 94 (collision S+S) and WA97, later on NA57 (collision Pb+Pb).

400: One can combine various ratios to obtain a window for the freeze out conditions

401: compatible with all these data. The basic idea is simple, for example:

402: \begin{equation}

403: \overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda \sim 

404: \exp \frac{2 (\mu_S-\mu_B)}{T}_{|f.out}=exp.\,value.

405: \end{equation}

406: (neglecting decays.)\\

407: 

408: In principle, this equation depends on three variables. However, supposing that strangeness is locally conserved, this leads to a relation $\mu_S(\mu_b,T)$, then given a minimum and a maximum values, the above equation gives a relation 

409: $T_{f.out}(\mu_{B\,f.out})$. We show typical results in figure~\ref{fig:redlich}.

410: \begin{figure}[htbp]

411: \begin{center}

412: \hspace*{-2.cm}

413: \epsfig{file=hgfout.eps,height=6.cm}

414: \end{center}

415: \caption{ Search of a window \cite{re94} of values of $T_{f.out}$ e

416:   $\mu_{b,\,f.out}$ reproducing WA85 data. This window only exists for

417: $\gamma < 1$ (for this reference).

418: \label{fig:redlich}}

419: \end{figure}

420: The parameter $\gamma$ in this figure is basically a 

421: phenomenological factor, which 

422: indicates how far from chemical equilibrium we are, it is introduced

423: in front of the factors

424:  $e^{\pm \mu_s/T}$ where $\mu_s$ is the s quark chemical potential, 

425:  $\mu_s=\mu_B/3-\mu_S$.

426: (There exists a study by C.Slotta et al. \cite{cl95}

427:  motivating this way of  including $\gamma$.)

428: It can be seen that if

429:  $\gamma=0,7$ it is possible to

430: reproduce the experimental ratios

431:   $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$,

432:  $\overline{\Xi}/{\Xi}$,

433: $\Xi/\Lambda$, $\overline{\Xi}/\overline{\Lambda}$ choosing 

434: $T_{f.out}$ and $\mu_{b,\,f.out}$ in a certain window.

435: This window is located around 

436: $T_{f.out}\sim 180-200$ MeV, $\mu_{b,\,f.out}\sim 200-300$ MeV.

437: One can be surprised by such high values since particle densities

438: are still high.

439: However these results are rather typical as can be checked in the table

440: ~\ref{tab:f.chem.}.

441: \begin{table}[htbp]

442: \caption{ Summary of freeze out values from J.Sollfrank

443:   \cite{so97a}.}

444: \label{tab:f.chem.}

445: \begin{center}

446:  \begin{tabular}{lllll}\hline 

447: collision & T (MeV) & $\mu_b$ (MeV) & $\gamma_s$ & ref. \\ \hline

448: S+S       & 170     &  257          &      1     & \cite{Davidson91a} \\

449:        & 197$\pm$29 & 267$\pm$21 & 1.00$\pm$0.21 & \cite{so94} \\

450:           & 185     &  301          &      1     &  \cite{tawai96}\\

451:        & 192$\pm$15 & 222$\pm$10    &      1     & \cite{panagiotou96} \\

452:        & 182$\pm$9  & 226$\pm$13 & 0.73$\pm$0.04 & \cite{becattini97} \\

453:        & 202$\pm$13 & 259$\pm$15 & 0.84$\pm$0.07 & \cite{so97b} \\ \hline

454: S+Ag   & 191$\pm$17 & 279$\pm$33    &      1     & \cite{panagiotou96} \\

455:     & 180.0$\pm$3.2 & 238$\pm$12 & 0.83$\pm$0.07 &  \cite{becattini97} \\

456:        & 185$\pm$8  & 244$\pm$14 & 0.82$\pm$0.07 & \cite{so97b} \\ \hline

457: S+Pb   & 172$\pm$16 & 292$\pm$42    &      1     & \cite{andersen94} \\

458: S+W    & 190$\pm$10 & 240$\pm$40    &     0.7    &  \cite{re94}  \\

459:        & 190        & 223$\pm$19 & 0.68$\pm$0.06 &  \cite{letessier95}\\

460:        & 196$\pm$9  & 231$\pm$18 & 1             &  \cite{braun96}\\

461: S+Au(W,Pb) & 165$\pm$5 & 175$\pm$5 &      1      &  \cite{panagiotou96} \\

462:            & 160    &  171       &        1      &  \cite{spieles97}\\

463:            & 160.2$\pm$3.5 & 158$\pm$4 & 0.66$\pm$0.04 &  \cite{so97b} \\ \hline        

464: \end{tabular}

465: \end{center}

466: \end{table}

467: 

468: The

469:  explaination usually given nowadays is that at these temperatures, particles

470:  are doing a {\em chemical freeze out}, they stop having inelastic collisions and their abundances are frozen. 

471: %So at SPS

472: %\begin{equation}

473: %T_{chem.\,f.out}\sim \mu_{b\,chem.\,f.out}\sim 200\, MeV

474: %\end{equation}

475: 

476: \subsection{3.2 Thermal freeze out}

477: 

478: Transverse mass distributions obtained experimentally 

479: (when plotted logarithmically) exhibit large inverse inclinations.

480: These are called effective temperatures. 

481: 

482: In the  case of hydrodynamics, these effective temperatures are thought

483: to be due to the convolution of the fluid temperature with its transverse velocity, both at freeze out. So in particular the effective temperatures are higher than the fluid temperature.

484: In addition, the effective temperature should be larger the larger the 

485: particle mass is , since the ``kick'' received  in momentum,

486: $\sim m v^{fluid}_{f.out}$,

487:  due to transverse 

488: expansion,

489:   is larger (this argument is only valid for the non-relativistic part of the spectrum i.e. $p_{\perp}<<m$; the effective temperature does not depend on mass for the part of the spectrum where

490: $p_{\perp}>>m$ (but for that part of the spectra other phenomena might be important).

491: In general, given an experimental 

492:  $m_{\perp}$ spectrum, there exist many pairs 

493: of   $T_{f.out}$ and   $v^{fluid}_{f.out}$ which can reproduce it.

494: 

495: To remove this ambiguity, we can compare the $m_{\perp}$ spectra for various

496: types of particles (e.g. \cite{na44}), or for a given type of particle, for example pions, 

497: combine the fit of the spectrum with results on HBT correlations

498: (e.g. \cite{wi97}).

499: A compilation for various accelerator energies 

500: of values for $T_{f.out}$   obtained from particle spectra

501: is presented in figure \ref{fig:he97fig} (dashed line).

502: \begin{figure}

503: \begin{center}

504: \epsfig{file=diag_2fonewn.eps,height=5.cm,angle=0}

505: \caption{Phase diagram with lines indicating values of freeze out parameters

506: at various energies

507: obtained from particle abundances (solid line) and particle spectra (dashed line) \cite{he97}. }

508: \label{fig:he97fig}

509: \end{center}

510: \end{figure}

511: A typical value

512:  at SPS is 

513: $T_{f.out}\sim 125$ MeV. 

514: One can be surprised by the fact that

515: these values for $T_{f.out}$ are lower than those obtained from particle ratios.

516: The usual explaination for this is that 125 MeV corresponds to a thermal freeze out of particles, i.e. when they stop having elastic collisions and the shape of their spectra become frozen.

517: %So now we have at SPS 

518: %\begin{equation}

519: %T_{th.f.out.}\sim 140\,MeV

520: %\end{equation}

521: This model with a chemical freeze out followed by a thermal freeze out is called separate freeze out model. 

522: Its parameters depend on the energy as shown in figure~\ref{fig:he97fig}; the

523: possible decrease of  $T_{f.out}$ with increasing energy is discussed

524:  in \cite{ha91,na92}.

525: Some possible problems of this model ($\Omega$ temperature and pion abundance are discussed later).

526: For the moment let us see how to incorporate this description in hydrodynamics, since so far it was based only on the analysis of two different types of data

527: with thermal or semi-analytical hydrodynamical models. 

528: 

529: 

530: 

531: \subsection{3.3 Is it quantitatively  necessary to modify hydrodynamics to

532: incorporate separate freeze outs?}

533: 

534: In \cite{ar01}, we made a preliminary study of whether such a

535: separate freeze out model would quantitatively influence the hydrodynamical expansion of the 

536: fluid. For this, we used a simple hydrodynamical model, with longitudinal expansion only and longitudinal boost invariance~\cite{bj}.

537: 

538: For a single freeze out, the hydrodynamical equations are

539: \begin{eqnarray}

540: \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial t}+\frac{\epsilon+p}{t} & = & 0 \nonumber\\

541: \frac{\partial n_B}{\partial t} + \frac{n_B}{t} & = & 0

542: \label{eq:bj}

543: \end{eqnarray}

544: The last equation can be solved easily

545: \begin{equation}

546: n_B(t)=\frac{n_B(t_0) t_0}{t}.

547: \end{equation}

548: 

549: Given an equation of state,

550:  $p(\epsilon,n_B)$, we can get

551:  $\epsilon(t)$ and $n_B(t)$, solving (\ref{eq:bj}). 

552: From them,   $T(t)$ and 

553:  $\mu_B(t)$ can be extracted. 

554: So, if the

555: freeze out criterion is $T_{f.out}=constant$, one can see which are the values

556: for other quantities at

557: freeze out, for example

558: the  values of  $t_{f.out}$, $\mu_{B\,f.out}$, ... These values being known,

559: spectra can be computed.

560: 

561: Now let us start again with the previous model, but we suppose

562: that when a certain temperature $T_{ch.f.out}$ is reached

563:   (corresponding to a certain $t_{ch.f.out}$) some abundances are

564: frozen.

565: To fix ideas, let us suppose that  $\Lambda$ and

566: $\bar{\Lambda}$ are in this situation.

567: In this case, for

568:  $t \geq t_{ch.f.out}$,

569: in addition 

570: to the  hydrodinamic equations above, (~\ref{eq:bj}), 

571: we must introduce separate conservation laws

572:  for these two types of particles

573: \begin{eqnarray}

574: \frac{\partial n_{\Lambda}}{\partial t} + \frac{n_\Lambda}{t} & = & 0\\

575: \frac{\partial n_{\bar{\Lambda}}}{\partial t} + \frac{n_{\bar{\Lambda}}}{t} & = & 0.

576: \end{eqnarray}

577: Again it is easy to solve these equations

578: \begin{eqnarray}

579: n_{\Lambda}(t)& = & \frac{n_{\Lambda}(t_0) t_0}{t}\\

580: n_{\bar{\Lambda}}(t) & = & \frac{n_{\bar{\Lambda}}(t_0) t_0}{t}

581: \label{eq:dens}

582: \end{eqnarray}

583: For times  $t \geq t_{ch.f.out}$, 

584: we need to solve the  hydrodynamic equations 

585:  (~\ref{eq:bj}) 

586: with an equation of state modified to

587:   incorporate these conserved  abundances.

588: 

589: We suppose that the fluid is a gas of non-interacting resonances.

590: \begin{eqnarray}

591: n_i & = & \frac{g_i m_i^2 T}{2 \pi^2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (\mp)^{n+1}

592: \frac{e^{n \mu_i/T}}{n} K_2(n m_i/T)\\

593: \epsilon_i & = & \frac{g_i m_i^2 T^2}{2 \pi^2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (\mp)^{n+1}

594: \frac{e^{n \mu_i/T}}{n^2}[3 K_2(n m_i/T)\\

595:  & + & \frac{n m_i}{T} K_1(n m_i/T)]

596: \nonumber

597: \\

598: p_i  & = & \frac{g_i m_i^2 T^2}{2 \pi^2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (\mp)^{n+1}

599: \frac{e^{n \mu_i/T}}{n^2} K_2(n m_i/T)

600: \end{eqnarray}

601: where $m_i$ is the particle mass, $g_i$, its degeneracy and

602: $\mu_i$, its chemical potential, the minus sign holds for fermions and

603: plus for bosons. In principle each particle

604: species  $i$ making early chemical freeze-out has a chemical potential

605: associated to it; this potential controls the conservation of the

606: number of particles of type $i$. For particle species not making early

607: chemical freeze-out, the chemical potential is of the usual type,

608: $\mu_i=B_i \mu_B +S_i \mu_S$, where $ \mu_B$ ($\mu_S$) ensures the

609: conservation of baryon number (strangeness) and $B_i$ ($S_i$) is the baryon

610: (strangeness)

611: number of particle of type $i$. 

612: So the modified equation of state depends not only on $T$ and $\mu_B$ but also

613: $\mu_{\Lambda}$, $\mu_{\bar{\Lambda}}, etc $. 

614: (the notation ``$etc$''  stands for all the other particles making early

615: chemical freeze-out). This complicates  the

616:  hydrodynamical problem, however we can note the following.

617: 

618: If $m_i-\mu_i>> T$ (the density of type $i$ particle is low)

619: and  $m_i >> T$, (these relations should hold for

620: all particles except pions and we checked them  for various times and

621: particle types)

622: the

623: following

624: approximations can be used

625: \begin{eqnarray}

626: n_i & = & \frac{g_i}{2 \pi^2} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} (m_i T)^{3/2}

627: e^{(\mu_i-m_i)/T} \nonumber \\

628: & & \times \left(1+\frac{15 T}{8 m_i }

629:                   + \frac{ 105 T^2}{128 m_i^2}+...

630: \right)

631: \\

632: \epsilon_i & = & n_i m_i

633: \left(1+\frac{3 T}{2 m_i }

634:                   + \frac{ 15  T^2}{8 m_i^2}+...

635: \right)

636: \\

637: p_i  & = & n_i T

638: \end{eqnarray}

639: We note that $\epsilon_i$ and $p_i$ are written in term of $n_i$ and T.

640: Therefore we can work

641:  with the variables $T, \mu_B,n_{\Lambda},n_{\bar{\Lambda}},etc$,

642: rather than $T,\mu_B,\mu_{\Lambda},\mu_{\bar{\Lambda}}, etc$.

643: The time dependence of $n_{\Lambda},n_{\bar{\Lambda}}, etc$ is known 

644: as discussed already.

645: So the modified equation of state can be computed from $t$, $T$ and 

646: $\mu_B$. 

647: 

648: 

649: In figure~\ref{fig:sep},

650: we compare the behavior of $T$ and $\mu_B$ as function of $t$, 

651: obtained from the

652: hydrodynamical equations using the  modified equation of

653: state and the unmodified one. 

654: \begin{figure}[htbp]

655: \begin{center}

656: %\epsfig{file=t_sqm.eps,height=5.cm,angle=-90}\hfill

657: \epsfig{file=T.ps,height=6.cm,angle=-90}\hfill

658: %\epsfig{file=ub_sqm.eps,height=6.cm,angle=-90}

659: \epsfig{file=ub.ps,height=6.cm,angle=-90}

660: \caption{  $\mu_B$ and T as function of

661:   time in the case where all particles

662: have simultaneous freeze-outs (dashed line) and (I) all strange particles

663: in basic multiplets

664:  make an early chemical freeze-out (continuous line), (II)

665:  all strange particles except $K$ and $K^*$'s

666:  make an early chemical freeze-out (dotted line).}

667: \label{fig:sep}

668: \end{center}

669: \end{figure}

670: We see that

671:  if the chemical and thermal freeze-out

672: temperatures are very different

673:  or if many particle species make an early chemical freeze out,

674:  the thermal freeze out time is quite affected.

675:   Therefore

676:  it is important

677: to take into account the effect of the

678: early chemical freeze-out on the equation of state to make predictions

679: for observables which depend on thermal freeze-out volumes (which are related to 

680: the thermal freeze out time), 

681: for example

682:  particle abundances and  eventually particle correlations.

683: 

684: 

685: 

686: 

687: If the 

688: chemical and thermal freeze-out

689: temperatures are not very different  or if few

690: particle

691: species make the early freeze out,

692: one can proceed as follows.

693: One can use an unmodified equation of state in a

694: hydrodynamical code and to account for early chemical freeze-out of species

695: $i$, when the number of type $i$ particles was fixed,

696: use a modified Cooper-Frye formula

697: \begin{equation}

698: \frac{E d^3N_{i}}{dp^3}= 

699: \frac{N_{i}(T_{ch.f.})}{N_{i}(T_{th.f.})} \times

700: \int_{S_{th.f.}} d\sigma_{\mu} p^{\mu} f(x,p).

701: \end{equation}

702: The second factor on the right hand side is the usual one and it

703: gives the shape of the spectrum at thermal freeze-out, the first factor

704: is a normalizing term introduced such that upon

705: integration on momentum $p$, the number of particles of type $i$ is $N_i(T_{ch.f})$.

706: As an illustration, using

707:  HYLANDER-PLUS 

708: \cite{nel}, we show in figure~\ref{fig:hylander} 

709:  that both the shapes of $m_\perp$ spectra and

710: abundances can be reproduced for $T_{ch.f.}=176$ MeV and

711:  $T_{th.f.}=139$ MeV, while simultaneous freeze-outs at 

712: $T_{ch.f.}=T_{th.f.}=139$ MeV would yield

713: the correct shapes but too few particles.

714: \begin{figure}[htbp]

715: \begin{center}

716: \epsfig{file=lam.eps,height=5.5cm,angle=-90}\hfill

717: \epsfig{file=alam.eps,height=5.5cm,angle=-90}\\

718: \epsfig{file=cas-F.eps,height=5.5cm,angle=-90}\hfill

719: \epsfig{file=acas-F.eps,height=5.5cm,angle=-90}

720: \caption{  $m_{\perp}$ spectra:  NA49 data and

721: HYLANDER-PLUS results. Dashed-dotted curves:

722: single freeze out at $T_{f.out}=139 MeV$. Solid curves (resp. dashed): 

723: chemical freeze out at 

724: $T_{f.out.\,ch.}=$ 176 (resp. 184) MeV and thermal freeze out at

725: $T_{f.out.\,th.}=$ 139 MeV (see text). 

726: \label{fig:hylander}}

727: \end{center}

728: \end{figure}

729: 

730: Hirano and Tsuda \cite{hi} confirmed the importance of including

731: separate freeze outs in hydrodynamical codes, in particular they studied 

732:  elliptic flow and HBT radii at RHIC. This is also consistent with results

733: in \cite{teaney}.

734: 

735: 

736: 

737: 

738: 

739: \section{4. Continuous emission}

740: 

741: \subsection{4.1 Formalism and modified fluid evolution}

742: 

743: In this section, we present a possible way out of the second problem mentioned above.

744: In colaboration with

745:  Y.Hama and T.Kodama, I made a description of particle emission

746:  \cite{Grassi95a,Grassi96a} which incorporates the fact that

747: they, at each instant and each location, have a certain probability

748: to escape without collision from the dense medium

749: (said in the same terms as above: there exists a region in spacetime

750: for the last collisions of each particle).

751: So the distribution function of the system in expansion has two terms

752: $f_{free}$, representing particles that made their last collision already, and

753:  $f_{int}$, corresponding to the particles that are still interacting

754: \begin{equation}

755: f(x,p)=f_{free}(x,p)+f_{int}(x,p)

756: \end{equation}

757: The formula for the free particle spectra is given by

758: \begin{equation}

759: E d^3N/dp^3=\int d^4x\, D_{\mu} [p^{\mu} f_{free}(x,p)]

760: \label{eq:CEM}

761: \end{equation}

762: (neglecting particles that are initially free; note that if it were not the case, the use of hydrodynamics would not be possible).

763: $D_{\mu}$ indicates a four-divergence in general coordinates.

764: This integral must be evaluated for the whole spacetime occupied by the fluid.

765: 

766: This way, we see that the spectra contains information about the whole fluid history and not just the time when it is very diluted.

767: (This formula reduces to the Cooper-Frye formula

768:  (\ref{eq:CF}) in an adequate limit).

769: 

770: We can write

771: \begin{equation}

772: f_{free}={\cal P} f={\cal P}/(1 -{\cal P}) f_{int}.

773: \label{eq:free}

774: \end{equation}

775: ${\cal P}(x,p)=f_{free}/f$,  the fraction of free  particles, 

776: can be identified with the probability

777: that a  particle of

778:  momentum $p$ escapes from $x$ without

779:  collisions, so to compute this quantity

780: we use the  Glauber formula

781: \begin{equation}

782: {\cal P}(x,p)=exp \left( - \int_t^{\infty} n(x') \sigma v_{rel} dt' \right).

783: \label{eq:glauber}

784: \end{equation}

785: 

786: We suppose also that all interacting particles are thermalized, so

787: \begin{eqnarray}

788: f_{int}(x,p) & = & f_{th}(x,p)= g/(2 \pi)^3  \nonumber \\

789:  & \times & 1/  \{\exp[(p.u(x)-\mu(x))/T(x)]\pm 1\}, 

790: \label{eq:termalizada}

791: \end{eqnarray}

792: where

793: $u^{\mu}$ is the fluid velocity,

794:  $\mu$ its chemical potential

795: ($\mu=\mu_B B+\mu_S S$ with $B$ the baryonic number of the hadron,

796: $S$, its strangeness and $\mu_B$ and $\mu_S$ the associated chemical potentials)

797: and

798: $T$ its temperature at $x$. 

799: 

800: To compute

801:  $u^{\mu}$, $\mu$  and  $T$, 

802: we must solve the equations of conservation of energy-momentum and baryonic number

803: \begin{eqnarray}

804: D_{\mu}T^{\mu\,\nu}&=&0\\

805: D_{\mu}(n_b u^{\mu})&=&0.

806: \end{eqnarray}

807: 

808: In the

809:  figure~\ref{fig:evolution}, examples of solution are given.

810: We can see that the fluid evolution with continuous emission is

811:  different from the usual case  without continuous emission. 

812: For example, and as expected, the temperature decreases faster

813: since free  particles

814: carry with them part of the  energy-momentum.

815: 

816: In

817:  principle we have all the  ingredients to compute

818:   (\ref{eq:CEM}).

819: However there exist two problems:

820:  1) numerically, in the equation~\ref{eq:free} we can have divergencies if

821:  ${\cal P}$ goes faster to 1 than $f_{int}$ goes to zero 2) 

822: the hypothesis that

823:  $f_{int}$ is

824: termalized (cf. eq.(\ref{eq:termalizada})) must loose its validity when

825: ${\cal P}$ goes to 1. 

826: To avoid this problem,

827: we divide  space-time in eq.

828: (\ref{eq:CEM}), in two  regions: the first with  ${\cal P} > {\cal

829:   P_F}$ and the  second with  ${\cal P} \leq {\cal P_F}$, for some

830: reasonable value of $ {\cal P_F}$. 

831: Using Gauss theorem, the  second part 

832:  reduces to an  integral over the  surface ${\cal P} = {\cal P_F}$ 

833: (which depends on the particle momentum)

834: \begin{eqnarray}

835: I_1 & = & \int_{{\cal P}={\cal P_F}} d\sigma_{\mu} p^{\mu} f_{free}\\

836:     & = & \frac{{\cal P_F}}{1-{\cal P_F}}

837: \int_{{\cal P}={\cal P_F}} d\sigma_{\mu} p^{\mu} f_{th}

838: \end{eqnarray}

839: There is still a certain fraction of interacting particles,

840:  $1-{\cal P_F}$ of the total,

841: on this  surface,

842: it is these  particles which in principle turn free

843: in the region

844: ${\cal P} > {\cal P_F}$. To count them, we suppose that they are rather diluted

845:  (i.e.  ${\cal P_F}$ is rather large) and we can apply a  Cooper-Frye 

846: formula for them

847: \begin{eqnarray}

848: I_2 & \sim &  \int_{{\cal P}={\cal P_F}} d\sigma_{\mu} p^{\mu} f_{int}\\

849:     & = &  \int_{{\cal P}={\cal P_F}} d\sigma_{\mu} p^{\mu} f_{th}

850: \end{eqnarray}

851: So finally

852: \begin{equation}

853: E\frac{d^3N}{dp^3} =I_1+I_2 \sim \frac{1}{1-{\cal P_F}} 

854: \int_{{\cal P}={\cal P_F}} d\sigma_{\mu} p^{\mu} f_{th}.

855: \label{eq:CEMA}

856: \end{equation}

857: It is this formula which is used below,

858: with ${\cal P_F}=0.5$

859: (but we tested the effect of changing this value)

860:  and  coordinates adequate for the

861: geometry of the  problem.

862: It is similar to a  Cooper-Frye 

863:  formula (\ref{eq:CF}), however one must note that

864: the   condition ${\cal P}={\cal P_F}$ depends not only on the localization of 

865: a  particle but its  momentum, which as we will see has interesting  

866: consequences. 

867: 

868: \begin{figure}[!b]

869: \begin{center}

870: \epsfig{file=fig4a_wsp.eps,height=6.5cm}\\

871: \epsfig{file=fig4b_wsp.eps,height=6.5cm}

872: \end{center}

873: \end{figure}

874: %\newpage

875: \begin{figure}[htbp]

876: \begin{center}

877: \epsfig{file=tr_ot.eps,height=5.cm}\\

878: \epsfig{file=ubr_ot.eps,height=5.cm}\\

879: \epsfig{file=vr_ot.eps,height=5.cm}

880: \caption[Fluid evolution]{  Fluid evolution

881:  supposing

882: longitudinal boost invarience\cite{bj}. 

883: Top two: for a light projectile such as S, $T$ and $\mu_B$ as function of radius; 

884: as a first

885:   approximation transverse expansion is neglected.

886: ( Solid lines correspond to a fluid with

887:   continuous emission,  dashed line lines

888:  to a fluid without continuous emission, i.e. the usual case.)

889: Bottom three: for a heavy projectile such as  Pb, $T$, $\mu_B$ and fluid velocity as function of radius;

890:   transverse expansion is included (times: 1,4,7,10 fm).

891: }

892: \label{fig:evolution}

893: \end{center}

894: \end{figure}

895: 

896: 

897: \subsection{4.2 Comparison of the continuous emission and freeze out scenarios}

898: 

899: In this section, I compare the interpretation of experimental data

900: in both   models.\\

901: 

902: {\bf a. Strange particle ratios}\\

903: We saw above that for the freeze out mechanism, strange particle ratios give information about chemical freeze out.

904: Now we see how to interpret these data within the continuous emission sceanrio \cite{Grassi96c,Grassi97,Grassi98,Grassi99a,Grassi99b}.

905: In this case, the only parameters are the initial conditions

906: $T_0$ e $\mu_{b\,0}$ and a value that we suppose average for

907:  $\gamma$.

908: We therefore fix a set of them, solve the

909:  equations of 

910: hydrodinamics with continuous emission, compute and integrate in  $p_{\perp}$   the spectra given by (\ref{eq:CEMA}) 

911: for each type of particles (we include also the decays of the various types of particles in one another).

912: In a way similar to freeze out

913: but now with   initial values instead of  freeze

914: out values, we get in

915:  figure~\ref{fig:janelaWA85},  

916: a window of  initial   conditions which permits to  reproduce the various 

917:  experimental ratios. (We also look at other ratios than those shown

918:  in the  figure, tested the effect

919: of changes in the equation of state, cross section,

920:   initial time, type of experimental cutoff.) 

921: 

922: \begin{figure}[htbp]

923: \begin{center}

924: \epsfig{file=fig2_sqm.eps,height=6.5cm}

925: \end{center}

926: \caption{ Window in  initial conditions

927:  allowing to reproduce WA85 data, for an equation of state with excluded volume

928: corrections~\cite{Grassi98}.}

929: \label{fig:janelaWA85}

930: \end{figure}

931: We see therefore that the 

932: initial

933:  conditions  necessary to  reproduce the WA85 data are

934: \begin{equation}

935: T_0\sim\mu_{b\,0}\sim 200\,MeV

936: \end{equation}

937: These values may seem high for the existence of a hadronic phase,

938: lattice gauge QCD simulations 

939: seem to 

940: indicate values smaller for the quark-hadron

941: transition.

942: Here we can note that 1) values of  QCD on the lattice are still evolving

943:  (problems exist to incorporate quarks with intermediate mass,

944:  include $\mu_b \neq 0$, etc. 2) Our own model is still being improved

945: and we know for example that the equation of state affects the  localization

946: of the window in initial conditions compatible with data.

947: 

948: In figure~\ref{fig:janelaWA97}, the same kind of analysis was done for the data  WA97.

949: \begin{figure}[htbp]

950: \begin{center}

951: \epsfig{file=os1.eps,height=6.5cm}

952: \end{center}

953: \caption{ Window in initial conditions  reproducing

954: WA97 data in the

955:  case of an equation of state without

956:  excluded volume corrections. With volume

957: corrections, the window is lower \cite{Grassi99b}.}

958: \label{fig:janelaWA97}

959: \end{figure}

960: With the reservation

961: in the caption of the figure, we see that the initial

962: conditions are not very different from the one above.

963: 

964: We can therefore conclude that the interpretation

965: of data on particle ratios lead to totally different  information

966: according to the emission model used. For the freeze out model, we get information about chemical freeze out while for continuous emission,

967: we learn about the initial conditions. \\

968: 

969: 

970: 

971: {\bf b. Transverse mass spectra}\\

972: For

973: freeze out, we saw that these spectra tell us about thermal freeze out (temperature and fluid velocity).

974:  Now for continuous emission let us see how to interpret these same spectra

975:  \cite{Grassi96c,Grassi97,Grassi98, Grassi99a,Grassi99b}.

976: In this case, the initial conditions were already determined from

977: strange particle ratios, they cannot be changed and must be used to compute the spectra as well.

978: For example, in figure~\ref{fig:espectros}, various spectra are shown, 

979: assuming $T_0=\mu_{b\,0}=200$ MeV, and compared with experimental data.

980: 

981: \begin{figure}[htbp]

982: \epsfig{file=fig_ot.eps,height=7.cm} 

983: \epsfig{file=ss_dist.eps,height=6.5cm}

984: \epsfig{file=sw_dist.eps,height=6.5cm}

985: \caption{ Using longitudinal boost invariance and no transverse expansion, we compare 

986: our predictions, top to bottom, with NA35 data   (S+S, all rapidity),

987: with  WA94 data (S+S, midrapidity, large transverse momenta)

988: and with WA85 data (S+W, midrapidity, large transverse momenta)

989: \cite{Grassi99a}.}

990: \label{fig:espectros}

991: \end{figure}

992: This comparison should not be considered as a fit but as a test of the possibility of

993:  interpreting various types of data in a self-consistent way with continuous emission 

994: (in particular note that our calculations were done assuming longitudinal

995: boost invariance). 

996: 

997: We learn various information from this comparison.

998: In these figures,

999: we do not take into account transverse expansion. 

1000: With

1001: the S+S NA35 data, we note that the heavy 

1002:  particles and high transverse momentum  pions 

1003: have similar inverse inclinations  $T_0 \sim 200$ MeV. 

1004: The particles heavier than pions, due to 

1005: termal suppression, are mainly emitted

1006: early when the temperature is $\sim

1007: T_0$. For lower temperatures, there are still emitted (and more easily due to matter dilution)

1008: but their  densities are quite smaller

1009:  (this is what is called thermal suppression) and their contributions as well.

1010: The high transverse momentum  pions 

1011: have large velocity and

1012:  (if not too far away from the outer fluid surface) escape without collision

1013: earlier than pions at the same place but with smaller velocity,

1014: so these high transverse momentum  pions

1015: also escape at $\sim T_0$.

1016: Pions are small mass particles and  are little affected by thermal suppression.

1017: This way, they can escape in significative number at various temperatures.

1018: This is reflected by their spectra, precisely its curvature.

1019: (In our calculation, decays into pions are not included, this would

1020: fill the small transverse momentum region and improve the agreement with experimental data.)

1021: 

1022: The S+S WA94 data

1023: also indicate that continuous emission is compatible with data.

1024: Finally, the S+W WA85 data  seem to indicate

1025: that perhaps somewhat different initial conditions  or a little  of transverse expansion might be necessary to reproduce data.

1026: 

1027: Our   calculations including transverse expansion

1028: indicate that little transverse expansion is compatible with data for light 

1029: projectile.

1030: This is understandable noting that the effective temperature of spectra are 

1031: already of order the initial temperature $\sim$ 200 MeV.

1032: In the case of heavy projectile, the situation is different.

1033: The various types of particles have different temperatures, all well above 200 MeV. In this case, we must include transverse expansion to get consistency with data.

1034: An example is shown in

1035:  figure~\ref{fig:ptwa97} with the same values of

1036:  $T_0$ and $\mu_{b,0}$ than previously, 

1037: 200 MeV.

1038: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1039: \begin{center}

1040: \epsfig{file=os3.eps,height=6.5cm}

1041: \end{center}

1042: \caption{ WA97 data and  example of comparison with

1043: continuous  emission with transverse expansion

1044:    (not a least square fit) for $T_0=\mu_{b.0}=200$ MeV \cite{Grassi99b}.} 

1045: \label{fig:ptwa97}

1046: \end{figure}

1047: \\

1048: 

1049: {\bf c. The case of the $\Omega$}\\

1050: The effective temperatures in the case of heavy projectiles, particularly for the $\Omega$, have attracted a lot of attention for the following reason.

1051: In the usual hydrodynamics with freeze out,

1052: as we saw, it is expected that effective temperatures increase with mass.

1053: In this context it was difficult to understand why the

1054:  $\Omega$ had an effective temperature much lower than other particles in

1055: figure~\ref{fig:temp}.

1056: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1057: \begin{center}

1058: \epsfig{file=YAN_1.eps,height=6.5cm}

1059: \end{center}

1060: \caption{ Compilation of experimental data

1061:  on effective temperatures

1062:  in the case of heavy projectile and  predictions for usual

1063:   hydrodynamics \cite{va98}. (The various experiments have different

1064:  rapidity  and transverse momentum cutoffs).

1065: In  general, deuteron is left outside the hydrodynamical analysis:

1066:  it is little bounded and should form later in the fluid evolution from

1067:    coalescence of a neutron and 

1068:   a proton with similar moment.}.

1069: \label{fig:temp}

1070: \end{figure}

1071: A possible explaination within hydrodynamics with

1072: separate freeze outs, is that the

1073:  $\Omega$ made its chemical and thermal freeze out together, early.

1074: Van Hecke et al.~\cite{va98} argued that this

1075:  is reasonable since it is expected that  $\Omega$  has a small cross section

1076: (because there is no channel for  $\Omega \pi 

1077: \rightarrow resonance \rightarrow \Omega \pi$)

1078: and

1079: showed that the microscopical model RQMD

1080: can reproduce the data.

1081: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1082: \begin{center}

1083: \epsfig{file=YAN_2.eps,height=6.cm}

1084: \end{center}

1085: \caption{Predictions from  RQMD \cite{va98} in the same experimental situation as the previous figure.}

1086: \label{fig:tempr}

1087: \end{figure}

1088: 

1089: In our model originally we had used the same value of the cross sections

1090: to compute the escape probability for the various types of particles. 

1091: This is not expected and indeed in this case, continuous 

1092: emission,  

1093: does not lead to good predictions as shown in figure~\ref{fig:tempec}a.

1094: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1095: \begin{center}

1096: \epsfig{file=Tef1.eps,height=7.5cm}\hfill\epsfig{file=Tef2.eps,height=7.cm} 

1097: \end{center}

1098: \caption{ Comparison  of experimental data on effective  

1099: temperatures

1100:  in the case of a heavy  projectile  with  predictions from continuous emission. Top: all cross section supposed equal. Bottom: more realistic cross section

1101: values

1102:  (cf. text) 

1103: \cite{os99,Grassi99b}.}

1104: \label{fig:tempec}

1105: \end{figure}

1106: Therefore in the spirit of microscopic models, we also show our predictions 

1107: in  figure~\ref{fig:tempec}b, for continuous emission and the following

1108: cross sections:

1109: $\sigma_{\pi \pi}\sim <\sigma v_{rel}>_{\pi \pi}\sim 1 fm^2$,

1110: $\sigma_{N \pi} \sim

1111: <\sigma v_{rel}>_{N \pi} \sim 3/2 <\sigma v_{rel}>_{\pi \pi}$

1112: (using additive  quark model estimate),

1113: $\sigma_{\Lambda \pi} \sim

1114: <\sigma v_{rel}>_{\Lambda \pi} \sim 1,2 <\sigma v_{rel}>_{\pi \pi}$

1115: (using additive  quark model estimate \cite{ba98})

1116: and

1117: $\sigma_{\Omega \pi} \sim

1118: <\sigma v_{rel}>_{\Omega \pi} \sim 1/2 <\sigma v_{rel}>_{N \pi}$

1119: (using estimate in \cite{bravina98b}).

1120: The predictions now are in agreement with data. However, the cross sections are poorly known and our results

1121:  are  sensitive to their values.

1122: 

1123: Recently, with new data by NA49, WA97~\cite{WA97art} and NA49~\cite{NA49art}

1124: came to the conclusion that in fact there is no need for early joint chemical 

1125: and thermal freeze outs for the 

1126: $\Omega$: all their spectra can be fitted with a simple hydro inspired model

1127: as seen in figure~\ref{fig:omega}.

1128: The previous difficulty for WA97 came from the fact~\cite{heinzart}

1129:  that $\Omega$ was observed at high $p_{\perp}$. 

1130: However now, STAR has problems \cite{starart}

1131: to fit with a simple hydro inspired model

1132: the $\Xi$ together with 

1133: $\pi, p, K, \Lambda$ and would need to assume early joint chemical and thermal freeze outs for the $\Xi$, as shown in figure~\ref{fig:cascade}.

1134: More recently, it has been noted \cite{na49omega}

1135: by NA49,

1136: that their conclusion depends on the parametrization used and

1137: in \cite{na57omega}, 

1138: NA57 argues that due to low statistics, it is not clear what conclusion can be drawn for 

1139: the $\Omega$.

1140: In \cite{fgsqm}, an attempt was made  to reproduce with a single  thermal 

1141: freeze out temperature in a hydrodynamical code,

1142: all transverse mass spectra 

1143: at a given energy.

1144: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1145: \begin{center}

1146: \epsfig{file=na49_om.eps,height=8.cm,angle=180}

1147: \epsfig{file=WA97omnew.eps,height=6.cm,angle=0}

1148: \end{center}

1149: \caption{Data and hydro inspired fit for all particles including $\Omega$, 

1150: top, NA49 and bottom, NA57 \cite{WA97art,NA49art}.}

1151: \label{fig:omega}

1152: \end{figure}

1153: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1154: \begin{center}

1155: \epsfig{file=star_om.eps,height=7.cm,angle=0}

1156: \end{center}

1157: \caption{A hydro fit to transverse mass spectra leads to high $T_{f.out}$

1158: for $\Xi$ and lower for $\pi, p, K, \Lambda$ \cite{starart}.}

1159: \label{fig:cascade}

1160: \end{figure}

1161: \\

1162: 

1163: 

1164: 

1165: {\bf d. Pion abundances}\\

1166: We showed that

1167: strange particle ratios can be reproduced by a model with chemical freeze out around 180 MeV. The abundances too can be reproduced. The problem is that the pion number is too low. This was noticed by

1168:   Davison et al. \cite{Davidson92a}, as shown in their table~\ref{tab:davidson}

1169: reproduced below

1170: 

1171: \begin{table}[htbp]

1172: \caption{Comparison between NA35 data and previsions

1173:   from a thermal model

1174: \cite{Davidson92a}.}

1175: \label{tab:davidson}

1176: \begin{center}

1177: \begin{tabular}{|l|lllllll|}

1178: \hline

1179:  & $K_S^0$ & $K^+$ & $K^-$ &  $\Lambda$ & $\overline{\Lambda}$ & ``p'´

1180:  & $\pi^-$\\

1181: \hline

1182: Th.          &  10.7          &  14.2         & 7.15        & 8.2

1183:                &  1.5           & 23.2          & 56.9               \\

1184: Exp.     &  10.7  &  12.5 & 6.9 

1185:                & 8.2    &  1.5   & 22.0  & 92.7

1186:  \\

1187:                &  $\pm$2.0  &  $\pm$0.4 & $\pm$0.4 

1188:                &  $\pm$0.9  &  $\pm$0.4   & $\pm$2.5  & $\pm$4.5       \\

1189: \hline

1190: \end{tabular}

1191: \end{center}

1192: \end{table}

1193: 

1194: There are various ways to try to solve this problem.

1195: \begin{enumerate}

1196: \item It can be argued  (in a spirit similar to  Cleymans et al. \cite{cl93})

1197: that strange particles do their chemical freeze our early 

1198: around

1199:  180 MeV and their thermal freeze out around

1200:  140 MeV but the

1201:  pions do their chemical and thermal freeze outs together around

1202:  140 MeV. In fact

1203: Ster et al. \cite{st99}

1204: manage to reproduce data by  NA49, NA44 and WA98 on spectra 

1205:    ({\em including normalization i.e. abundances}) for

1206:  negatives, pions, kaons and protons  and

1207: HBT radii (see next section) with temperature around

1208:  140

1209: MeV and null chemical potential for the pions.

1210: On the other side,  Tom\'asik et al. \cite{to99}

1211: say that for the same kind of objective, they need

1212: temperatures of order  100 MeV and non zero chemical potential for the pions.

1213: So it is not clear if to reproduce the pion abundance, 

1214: it is necessary to modify the hydrodynamics with separate freeze out, 

1215: including 

1216: pions out of chemical equilibrium or not.

1217: \item Gorenstein and colaborators \cite{ri97,ye97,ye99}

1218: studied modifications of the  equation of  state, precisely they included

1219: a smaller radius for the volume corrections of the pion. 

1220: \item Letessier et al. made a  s\'erie of papers \cite{le93,letessier95}

1221: arguing that the large pion abundance is indicative of the formation of a quark gluon plasma

1222: hadronizing suddenly, with both strange and non-strange quarks out of chemical equilibrium~\cite{le98}.

1223: \end{enumerate} 

1224: 

1225: Given the difficulty that freeze out models have with pions, it is interesting to compute abundances with continuous emission models.

1226: In the table, results and  NA35 data from S+S are shown (data are selected at midrapidity).

1227: \begin{table}[htbp]

1228: \caption{Comparison between  experimental data, results for

1229: continuous  emission at $T_0=\mu_{b,0}=200$ MeV and freeze out at

1230:    $T_0=\mu_{b,0}=T_{f.out}=\mu_{b\,f.out}=200$ MeV.}

1231: \begin{center}

1232: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|} \hline

1233:   & experimental value  &  continuous emission  & freeze out\\  \hline

1234: $\Lambda$ & 1.26$\pm$0.22 & 0.96 & 0.92 \\

1235: $\bar{\Lambda}$ & 0.44$\pm$0.16 & 0.29 & 0.46 \\

1236: $p-\bar{p}$  & 3.2$\pm$1.0 & 3.12 & 1.32 \\

1237: $h^-$     & 26$\pm$1 & 27 & 15.7 \\

1238: $K^0_S$   & 1.3$\pm$0.22  & 1.23 & 1.06\\ \hline

1239: \end{tabular}

1240: \end{center}

1241: \end{table}

1242: 

1243: It can be seen that in the continuous emission model, a larger number of pions is created.

1244: In \cite{Grassi00a}, we related this increase to

1245: the fact that entropy increases during the fluid expansion. 

1246: This is due to the continuous process of separation into free and interacting components  

1247: as well as continuous

1248:  re-termalization of the fluid. 

1249: In contrast, in the usual hydrodynamic model,

1250:  entropy is  conserved and  related to the  

1251:    number of  pions; so in this usual model,  observation of a large

1252:  number of  pions

1253: implies a large initial   entropy and is indicative of a 

1254:    quark gluon plasma  \cite{le93,letessier95,le98}.

1255: In our case, a large number of pions does not imply a large initial entropy 

1256: and the existence of a plasma. 

1257: It can be noted that the interpretation of data is quite

1258: influenced by the choice of the particle emission model.\\

1259: 

1260: {\bf e. HBT}\\

1261: Interferometry is a tool which permits  extracting information on the spacetime structure of the   particle emission source and is sensitive to the underlying dynamics.

1262: Since pion emission is different in freeze out and continuous emission models,

1263: it is interesting to compare their interferometry predictions (for a review see \cite{sandra}). 

1264: This was done in  ref. \cite{Grassi00b}.

1265: 

1266: 

1267: In this work, the formalism of continuous emission

1268: \cite{Grassi95a,Grassi96a}

1269: was extended to the computation of  correlation functions. 

1270: Precisely, we computed

1271: \begin{equation}

1272: C(k_1,k_2)=C(q,K)=

1273: 1+\frac{|G(q,K)|^2}{G(k_1,k_1)G(k_2,k_2)}\;\;,  \label{cce}

1274: \end{equation}

1275: where $q^\mu =k_1^\mu -k_2^\mu $ e 

1276: $K^\mu =\frac 12(k_1^\mu +k_2^\mu )$.

1277: 

1278: In the case of freeze out (in the Bjorken model with 

1279: pseudo-temperature\cite{ko86})

1280: \begin{equation}

1281: G(k_1,k_2)=2<\frac{dN}{dy}> \{\frac 2{q_TR_T}J_1(q_TR_T)\}K_0(\xi ) 

1282: \end{equation}

1283: where

1284: \begin{eqnarray}

1285: \xi^2&=&[\frac 1{2T}(m_{1T}+m_{2T})-i\tau(m_{1T}-m_{2T})]^2+ \nonumber\\

1286: &&2\,(\frac 1{4T^2}+\tau ^2)\,m_{1T}\,m_{2T}\,[\cosh (\Delta y)-1]\;\;,

1287: \label{xi}

1288: \end{eqnarray}

1289: $\Delta y=y_1-y_2$, $<\ >$ indicates average over particles 1 and 2\\ 

1290: and 

1291: \begin{equation}

1292: G(k_i,k_i)=2\frac{dN}{dy_i}K_0(\frac{m_{iT}}T).

1293: \end{equation}

1294: 

1295: In the case of continuous emission

1296: in the   Bjorken model  with 

1297: pseudo-temperature

1298: \begin{eqnarray}

1299: G(q,K)& = &\frac 1{(2\pi )^3(1-{\bf {\cal P}}_{{\cal F}})}\int_0^{2\pi }d\phi

1300: \int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }d\eta  \nonumber \\

1301: & \times & \{\int_0^{R_T}\rho \;d\rho \;\tau _{{\cal F}}\;M_T\;\cosh (Y-\eta)

1302: \nonumber \\

1303: %& &

1304: &\times &  e^{i[\tau _{{\cal F}}(q_0\cosh \eta -q_L\sinh \eta )-\rho q_T\cos

1305: (\phi -\phi _q)]}  \nonumber \\

1306: & + & \!\int_{\tau _0}^{+\infty }\!\!\tau d\tau \rho _{{\cal F}}K_T\cos \phi 

1307: \nonumber \\

1308: %& &

1309: &\times & \,e^{i[\tau (q_0\cosh \eta -q_L\sinh \eta )-\rho _{{\cal F}}q_T\cos

1310: (\phi -\phi _q)]}\}  

1311: \nonumber \\

1312: %& \times &

1313: & \times &  e^{-M_T\cosh (Y-\eta )/T_{ps}(x)}, \nonumber \\

1314: % & &

1315: \end{eqnarray}

1316: with

1317: $M_T=\!\sqrt{K_T^2+M^2},\;\vec{K}_T=\frac 12 

1318: (\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2)_T\,,\,M^2=K_\mu K^\mu=m^2-\frac 14q_\mu q^\mu $,

1319: $Y$ is the rapidity corresponding to  $\vec{K}$, $\phi $ is

1320:  the azimuthal angle in  

1321:  relation to the  direction of   $\vec{K}$ and  $\phi _q$ is the 

1322:  angle between the directions of  $\vec{q}$ and $\vec{K}$. $\tau_{\cal{P_F}}$ and

1323: $\rho_{\cal{P_F}}$ are determined by $\cal{P}=\cal{P_F}$. 

1324: $T_{ps}(x)=1,42 T(x)-12,7 MeV$.

1325: 

1326: In \cite{Grassi00b}, a few idealized cases were studied and then 

1327: some cases more representative of the experimental situation, were presented. For example,

1328: instead of $C(q,K)$, we computed

1329: %\begin{eqnarray}

1330: %&&\langle C(q_L)\rangle =1+  \nonumber \\

1331: %&&\frac{\int_{-180}^{180}dK_L\int_{50}^{600}dK_T\int_0^{30}dq_S

1332: %  \int_0^{30}dq_oC(K,q)|G(K,q)|^2}{\int_{-180}^{180}dK_L

1333: %  \!\int_{50}^{600}dK_T\!\int_0^{30}dq_S\!\int_0^{30}dq_o 

1334: %  C(K,q)G(k_1,k_1)G(k_2,k_2)}\,.  \nonumber

1335: %\end{eqnarray}

1336: \begin{eqnarray}

1337:  & \langle C(q_L)\rangle  = 1+  \nonumber \\ 

1338:  & \frac{\int_{-180}^{180}dK_L\int_{50}^{600}dK_T\int_0^{30}dq_S

1339:   \int_0^{30}dq_oC(K,q)|G(K,q)|^2}{\int_{-180}^{180}dK_L

1340:   \!\int_{50}^{600}dK_T\!\int_0^{30}dq_S\!\int_0^{30}dq_o 

1341:   C(K,q)G(k_1,k_1)G(k_2,k_2)}.  \nonumber \\

1342:  &  

1343: \end{eqnarray}

1344: (This corresponds to the experimental cuts of  NA35).

1345: $q_O$, $q_S$ e $q_L$ are defined in figure~\ref{fig:def}.

1346: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1347: \begin{center}

1348: \epsfig{file=fig1_WH.epsi,height=4.cm}

1349: \end{center}

1350: \caption{ By definition : $Oz$ is chosen along the beam and

1351: $\vec{K}$ in the $x-z$ plane.  The  $L$ (longitudinal) component of a vector is

1352: its 

1353:  $z$ component,  the $O$ (``outward'') its $x$ component and $S$

1354: (``sidewards'') its  $y$ component \cite{dessinhbt}.

1355: \label{fig:def}}

1356: \end{figure}

1357: %They are sensitive respectively to the duration of the source emission,

1358: %source transverse size  (here due to the non-inclusion of transverse expansion,

1359: %it is the radius of  nuclei involved in the 

1360: %colision ), the value ot  $T_{f.out}$ in the case of  freeze out and the fluid history in the csae of continuous   emission.

1361: 

1362: In a first comparison, we used similar initial conditions than above,

1363:  $T_0=200$ MeV  (S+S collisions) for both continuous emission and freeze out.

1364:  Results are presented as function of

1365:  $q_L$,$q_O$ and $q_S$ in figure~\ref{fig:HBT1}.

1366: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1367: \begin{center}

1368: \epsfig{file=fig4_HBT,height=7.cm}\hfill\epsfig{file=fig5_HBT,height=7.cm}

1369: \hfill\epsfig{file=fig6_HBT,height=7.cm}

1370: \end{center}

1371: \caption{ Comparison of continuous emission with  freeze out, 

1372: when both have  the same initial conditions  \cite{Grassi00b}.

1373: \label{fig:HBT1}}

1374: \end{figure}

1375: In a second comparison, given a curve obtained for continuous emission,

1376: we try to find a similar curve obtained with the standard 

1377: value

1378: $T_{f.out}=140$ MeV, varying the initial   temperature $T^{f.out}_0$.

1379: The results are shown as function of

1380: $q_L$,$q_O$ e $q_S$ in figure~\ref{fig:HBT2}.

1381: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1382: \begin{center}

1383: \epsfig{file=fig7_HBT,height=7.cm}\hfill\epsfig{file=fig8_HBT,height=7.cm}

1384: \hfill\epsfig{file=fig9_HBT,height=7.cm}

1385: \end{center}

1386: \caption{ Given a curve obtained for continuous  emission, 

1387: we look for initial conditions for freeze out at $T_{f.out}=140$ MeV leading to a similar curve

1388: \cite{Grassi00b}.

1389: \label{fig:HBT2}}

1390: \end{figure}

1391: From these two sets of figures,

1392: it can be seen that there are many differences in the

1393: correlations between both

1394: models: shape. heigth,  etc. If the initial conditions are the same,

1395:  the correlations are very different. Even more interesting

1396: if trying to approximate with a freeze out at $T_{f.out}=140$ MeV,

1397: the continuous emission  correlations, it is necessary to assume a  $T_0$ very high, where the notion of  hadronic gas looses its validity.

1398: So, we can see that if continuous emission is the correct description for

1399:  experimental data, it will be more difficult to attain the quark gluon plasma

1400: than it looks  using the freeze out   model.

1401: So again we conclude that what we learn about the hot dense matter created depends on the emission model used.

1402: ( Note that to actually compare with data, transverse expansion  has to be included. )

1403: 

1404:  More recently, we addressed the ``HBT puzzle'' at RHIC using NeXSPheRIO~\cite{hbt04} (for a review on NeXSPheRIO, see \cite{yogiro_review}).

1405: We showed that the use of varying initial conditions leads to smaller radii.

1406: In addition, though continuous emission is not easy to introduce in hydrodynamical codes (because (\ref{eq:glauber}) depends on the future evolution of the fluid), 

1407: it was introduced in an approximate way and shown to be important

1408: to reproduce the momentum dependence of the radii.

1409: \\

1410: 

1411: {\bf f. Plasma}\\

1412: In all the previous analysis, we assumed that the fluid was initially composed of hadrons with some initial conditions

1413: $T_0$, $\mu_{b,0}$.  

1414: Given the possibility that a quark gluon plasma might have been created already, we must discuss the extension of our model to the case were a plasma might have been formed.

1415: 

1416: Initially, it might be expected that continuous emission by a plasma is

1417: impeded for two reasons:

1418:  1) a hadron emitted by the plasma surface, in the outward direction,  

1419: must cross all the hadronic matter around the plasma core , so   probably it will suffer collisions and when finally emitted, it will be emitted by the hadronic gas in the way we have considered so far

1420:  2) the plasma is

1421: formed by colored objects that must recombine in a color singlet

1422: at the plasma surface  to be emitted, this makes plasma emission more difficult than hadron gas emission.

1423: 

1424: For simplicity let us consider a second order phase 

1425: transition.

1426: We use for the hadron gas a  resonance gas  equation of state. For the plasma, we use a MIT bag equation of state where the value of the bag constant

1427: and transition temperature are  adjusted

1428: to get a second order phase transtion.

1429: We get $T_c \sim 220$ MeV and $B \sim  580$ MeV $fm^{-3}$.

1430: 

1431: Then we solve the hydrodynamics equation (without continuous emission as a first approximation)

1432: to know the localization and evolution of the plasma core.

1433: This is shown in figure~\ref{fig:qgp}. 

1434: These equations were also solved for the case of a hadronic gas for comparison in figure~\ref{fig:hg}.

1435: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1436: \epsfig{file=boxqw_qg.eps,height=6.cm,angle=0}

1437: \epsfig{file=eliqw_qg.eps,height=6.cm,angle=0}

1438: \caption{ Evolution of temperature in  the case

1439: of a hadron gas with quark core

1440:  and initial boxlike

1441:  matter distribution,  top and softer, bottom.

1442: \label{fig:qgp}}

1443: \end{figure}

1444: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1445: \epsfig{file=boxhw_qg.eps,height=6.cm,angle=0}

1446: \epsfig{file=elihw_qg.eps,height=6.cm,angle=0}

1447: \caption{ Evolution of temperature in  the case

1448: of a hadron gas 

1449:  and initial boxlike

1450:  matter distribution,  top and softer, bottom.}

1451: \label{fig:hg}

1452: \end{figure}

1453: It can be checked that when there exists a plasma core, it is quite close to the outside region. Contrarely to the reservation 1) above,

1454: hadrons emitted by the plasma surface might be quite close enough 

1455: to the outside to escape without collisions.

1456: 

1457: Now for reservation number 2), we note that there exist various mechanisms

1458: \cite{raf83,ban83,mu85,vi91,russe} proposed for hadron emission by a plasma.

1459: To start we can assume as  Visher et al. \cite{vi91} that the plasma emits in equilibrium with the  hadron gas.

1460: In this case, the emission formula by the plasma core+hadron gas would be

1461: \begin{eqnarray}

1462: E\frac{d^3N}{dp^3} & = & \int d\phi d\eta 

1463: %\left[ 

1464: [ \int_0^{\infty} \rho d\rho

1465: \left( p^{\tau} f_{free} \tau \right)_{|\tau_{\infty}}  \nonumber \\

1466: & + &

1467: \int_{\tau_0}^{\infty} \tau d\tau

1468: \left( p^{\rho} f_{free} \rho \right)_{|R_{out}(\tau)} ]

1469: %\right]      

1470: \end{eqnarray}

1471: where $R_{out}(\tau)$ is the radius up to which there is matter. \\

1472: This is similar to the hadron gas case treated above. The difference is in the calculation of

1473:  $\cal P$, (which appears in  $f_{free}$),

1474: since a hadron entering the plasma core will be supposed detroyed.

1475: 

1476: In the same spirit as above,  a cutoff at 

1477: ${\cal P}={\cal P_F}$ can be introduced.

1478: Due to the similarity for the spectra formula with and without plasma core,

1479: we do not expect very drastic differences if the transition is second order.

1480: Of course, the case of first order transition must be considered (though results from lattice QCD on the lattice do not favour strong first order transition).

1481: (Note that $T_c \sim 220$ MeV is higher than expected, this might be improved

1482: e.g. using a better equation of state).

1483: 

1484: 

1485: \section{Conclusion}

1486: 

1487: In this paper,  we discussed particle emission in hydrodynamics.

1488: Sudden freeze out is the mechanism commonly used.

1489: We described some of its caveats and ways out. 

1490: 

1491: First the problem of negative contributions in the Cooper-Frye formula was presented.

1492: When these contributions are neglected, they lead to violations of conservation laws. We showed how to avoid this, the main difficulty remains to compute the distribution function of matter that crossed the freeze out surface.

1493: Even models  combining hydrodynamics with a cascade code have this type of problem or related ones~\cite{bu03}.

1494: 

1495: Assuming that sudden freeze out does hold true, data call for two separate freeze outs. 

1496: We argue that in this case, this must be included in the hydrodynamical code

1497: as it will influence the fluid evolution and the observables.

1498: Some works \cite{flor} using paramatrization of the hydrodynamical solution 

1499: suggest that a single freeze out might be enough.

1500: No  hydrodynamical code with simultaneous chemical and thermal freeze outs

1501: achieves this so far (see e.g. our figures 

1502: ~\ref{fig:hylander}). 

1503: On the other side, (single) explosive freeze out is being incorporated in a hydrodynamical code \cite{csernaicode}.

1504: 

1505: Finally, we argued that microscopical models indeed do not indicate a sudden freeze out but a continuous emission~\cite{Bra,Sor,Bas}. 

1506: We showed how to formulate particle emission in hydrodynamics for this case and

1507: discussed extensively its consistency with data. We pointed out in various cases

1508:  that the interpretation of data is quite influenced by the choice of the particle emission mechanisms.

1509: The formalism that we presented for continuous emission needs improvements, for example the ansatz of immediate rethermalization is not realistic.

1510: An example of such an attempt is~\cite{yogiro}.

1511: Finally, it is also necessary to think of ways to include continuous emission 

1512: in hydrodynamics. This is not trivial because the probability to escape depends on the future. In \cite{hbt04}, such an idea was applied to the ``HBT puzzle'' at RHIC with promising results.

1513: 

1514: \subsection{Acknowledgments}

1515: This work was partially supported by FAPESP (2000/04422-7).

1516: The author wishes to thank L.Csernai and S.Padula for reading parts of the 

1517: manuscript prior to submission.

1518: 

1519: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1520: \bibitem{landau} ``Collected papers of L.D.Landau'' p. 665, ed. D.Ter-Haar, Pargamon, Oxford, 1965.

1521: 

1522: \bibitem{fermi} E.Fermi Prog. Theor. Phys. 5 (1950) 570

1523:   

1524: \bibitem{ha97a} Y.Hama, T.Kodama \& S.Paiva Phys. Rev. C55 (1997) 1455; Found. of Phys. 27 (1997) 1601.

1525: 

1526: \bibitem{ag02} C.Aguiar, Y.Hama, T.Kodama \& T.Osada Nucl. Phys. A698 (2002) 

1527: 639c.

1528: 

1529: \bibitem{ha85} Y.Hama \& F.Pottag Rev. Bras. Fis. 15 (1985) 289.

1530: 

1531: \bibitem{cs03} T.Cs\"orgo, F.Grassi, Y.Hama \& T.Kodama Phys. Lett. B565 (2003) 107-115

1532: 

1533: \bibitem{el99} H.-T. Elze, Y.Hama, T.Kodama, M.Markler \& J.Rafelski

1534: J. Phys. G25 (1999) 1935

1535: 

1536: \bibitem{ag01} C.Aguiar,  T.Kodama, T.Osada \& Y.Hama 

1537: J. Phys. G27 (2001) 75; Nucl. Phys.A698 (2002) 639c.

1538:      

1539: \bibitem{me93} D.Menezes, F.Navarra, M.Nielsen \& U.Ornik Phys. rev. C47 (1993) 2635

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{ag03} C.Aguiar \& T.Kodama Phys. A320 (2003) 371

1542: 

1543: \bibitem{ha88} Y.Hama \& S.Padula Phys. Rev. D37 (1988) 3237

1544: 

1545: \bibitem{pa98} S.Padula \& C.Rold\~ao Phys. Rev. C58 (1998) 2907

1546: 

1547: \bibitem{pa02} S.Padula Nucl. Phys. A715 (2002) 637c

1548: 

1549: \bibitem{gr00} F.Grassi, Y.Hama, S.Padula \& O.Socolowski Jr. Phys. Rev. C62 (2000) 044904 

1550: 

1551: \bibitem{gr98} F.Grassi \& O.Socolowski Jr. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 1770

1552: 

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{gr99a} F.Grassi \& O.Socolowski Jr. J. Phys. G25 (1999) 331

1555: 

1556: \bibitem{gr99b} F.Grassi \& O.Socolowski Jr. J. Phys. G25 (1999) 339

1557: 

1558: \bibitem{ha91} Y.Hama \& F.Navarra Z.Phys. C53 (1991) 501

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{na92} F.Navarra, M.C.Nemes, U.Ornik \& S.Paiva Phys. Rev. C45 (1992) R2552

1561: 

1562: \bibitem{gr95}F.Grassi, Y.Hama \& T.Kodama Phys. Lett. B355 (1995) 9; Z.Phys. C73 (1996) 153.

1563: 

1564: \bibitem{ma99} V.K.Margas, Cs.Anderlik, L.P.Csernai, 

1565: F.Grassi, W.Greiner, Y.Hama, T.Kodama, Zs.I.L\'az\'ar \& H.St\"ocker

1566: Phys. Lett. B459 (1999) 33; Phys. Rev. C59 (1999) 3309; Nucl. Phys. A661 (1999) 596.

1567: 

1568: \bibitem{ar01} N.Arbex, F.Grassi, Y.Hama \& O.Socolowski Jr.

1569: Phys. Rev. C64 (2001) 064906

1570: 

1571: \bibitem{yogiro} Yu.M.Sinyukov, S.V.Akkelin and Y.Hama Phys.Rev.Lett. 89 (2002) 052301

1572: 

1573: \bibitem{hi} T.Hirano Phys.Rev.Lett. 86 (2001) 2754; Phys.Rev. C65 (2002) 011901; T.Hirano, K.Morita, S.Muroya and C.Nonaka

1574: Phys.Rev. C65 (2002) 061902; T.Hirano and K.Tsuda

1575: Phys.Rev. C66 (2002) 054905

1576: 

1577: \bibitem{he87}  U.Heinz,K.S.Lee and M.Rhoades-Brown, Phys.Rev.Lett. 58 (1987) 2292.

1578: \bibitem{le88} K.S.Lee, M.Rhoades-Brown and  U.Heinz,, Phys. Rev. C37

1579: (1988) 1463.

1580: \bibitem{hu98} C.M.Hung and E.Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C57 (1998) 1891.

1581: \bibitem{leh90} K.S. Lee, U.~Heinz, and E.~Schnerdermann, Z.Phys.C 48(1990)525

1582: 

1583: \bibitem{CFart} F. Cooper and G. Frye, Phys.Rev. D10 (1974) 186. 

1584: 

1585: \bibitem{Bra} L.Bravina et al. Phys. Lett. B354 (1995) 196.

1586: Phys. Rev.C60 (1999)044905.

1587: 

1588: \bibitem{Sor} H. Sorge, Phys. Lett. B373  (1996) 16.

1589: 

1590: \bibitem{Bas} S.Bass et al. Phys. Rev. C69(1999)021902

1591: 

1592: \bibitem{be96} S. Bernard et al., Nucl. Phys. A605 (1996) 566. 

1593: 

1594: \bibitem{ri98} D.H. Rischke, Proceedings of the 11th Chris Engelbrecht Summer School in Theoretical

1595:      Physics, Cape Town, February 4-13, 1998, nucl-th/9809044. 

1596: \bibitem{an99} Cs. Anderlik, Zs.I.L\'az\'ar,V.K.Margas, L.P.Csernai,

1597:  W.Greiner,  \& H.St\"ocker Phys.Rev. C59 (1999) 388

1598: 

1599: 

1600: \bibitem{ma99b} V.K.Margas,Cs. Anderlik,L.P.Csernai, 

1601: F.Grassi, W.Greiner, Y.Hama,T.Kodama, Zs.I.L\'az\'ar \& H.St\"ocker

1602: Heavy Ion Phys. 9 (1999) 193

1603: 

1604: 

1605: \bibitem{ta04} K.Tamosiunas and L.P.Csernai, Eur. Phys. J. A20 (2004) 269.

1606: 

1607: 

1608: \bibitem{cs04}  L.P.Csernai, V.K.Margas, E.Molnar, A. Nyiri and K.Tamosiunas

1609: hep-ph/0406082 

1610: 

1611: \bibitem{ma03} V.K.Margas,A.Anderlik, Cs.Anderlik, L.P.Csernai

1612:  Eur.Phys.J. C30 (2003) 255

1613: 

1614: \bibitem{tea01} D.Teanay et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) .

1615: 

1616: \bibitem{du00} S.Bass and A.Dumitru Phys. Rev. C61 (2000) 064909.

1617: 

1618: \bibitem{bu03} K.A. Bugaev Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 252301.

1619: 

1620: 

1621: 

1622: \bibitem{cl95} C.Slotta, J.Sollfrank and U.Heinz, Proceedings of

1623: Strangeness in Quark Matter '95, AIP Pess, Woobury, NY.

1624: \bibitem{re94} K.Redlich et al.NPA556(1994)391.

1625: \bibitem{so97a} J.Sollfrank, J.Phys. G23 (1997) 1903.

1626: \bibitem{Davidson91a} Davidson,N.J. et al. Phys. Lett. B255(1991)105

1627: \bibitem{so94} J.Sollfrank et al. Z.Phys. C61 (1994) 659.

1628: \bibitem{tawai96} V.K.Tawai et al. Phys. Rev. C53 (1996) 2388.

1629: \bibitem{panagiotou96} A.D.Panagiotou et al. Phys. Rev. C53 (1996) 1353.

1630: \bibitem{becattini97} F.Becattini, J.Phys. G23 (1997) 287.  

1631: \bibitem{so97b} J.Sollfrank, pr\'oprios resultados.

1632: \bibitem{andersen94} G.Andersen et al., Phys. Lett. B327 (1994) 433.

1633: \bibitem{letessier95} J.Letessier et al., Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 3408.

1634: \bibitem{braun96} P.Braun-Munzinger et al. Phys. Lett. B365 (1996) 1.

1635: \bibitem{spieles97} C.Spieles et al., Eur.Phys.J. C2 (1998) 351.

1636: \bibitem{na44} N.Xu et al., NA44 collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A610

1637:   (1996) 175c.

1638: \bibitem{wi97} U.E.Wiedermann, B.Tom\'asik and U.Heinz,

1639:   Nucl. Phys. A638 (1997) 475c.

1640: \bibitem{he97} U.Heinz Nucl. Phys. A638 (1998) 357c.

1641: \bibitem{bj} J.D.Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 140.

1642: \bibitem{nel} N. Arbex, U. Ornik, M. Pl\"umer and R. Weiner, Phys.Rev. C55

1643:  (1997) 860.

1644: \bibitem{teaney} D.Teaney nucl-th/0204023.

1645: \bibitem{Grassi95a}   F.Grassi, Y.Hama and T.Kodama, Phys. Lett. B355(1995)9

1646: \bibitem{Grassi96a} F.Grassi,Y.Hama and T.Kodama, Z. Phys. C73(1996)153

1647: \bibitem{Grassi96c} F. Grassi and O.Socolowski Jr., Heavy Ion Phys. 4(1996)257.

1648: \bibitem{Grassi97} F.Grassi, Y.Hama, T.Kodama \& O.Socolowski Jr.,

1649: Heavy Ion Phys. 5 (1997) 417.

1650: \bibitem{Grassi98} F.Grassi and O.Socolowski,  Phys. Rev. Lett.80 (1998) 1170.

1651: \bibitem{Grassi99a} F.Grassi and O.Socolowski, J.Phys.G 25 (1999) 331.

1652: \bibitem{Grassi99b} F.Grassi \& O.Socolowski,  J.Phys.G 25 (1999) 339.

1653: \bibitem{va98} Van Hecke et al. Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998)5764.

1654: \bibitem{ba98} S.Bass et al., Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 41 (1998) 225.

1655: \bibitem{bravina98b} L.Bravina et al. , J.Phys. G25 (1999) 351. 

1656: \bibitem{os99} O.Socolowski Jr., Ph.D. thesis, april 99, IFT-UNESP.

1657: \bibitem{WA97art} L.\u{S}\'andor et al. (WA97) J. Phys. G30 (2004) S129.

1658: \bibitem{NA49art} M. van Leeuwen et al. (NA49) Nucl. Phys. A715 (2003) 161c.

1659: \bibitem{heinzart} U. Heinz J. Phys. G30 (2004) S251.

1660: \bibitem{starart} J. Castillo et al. (STAR) J. Phys. G30 (2004) S181.

1661: \bibitem{na49omega} C.Alt et al. nucl-ex/0409004

1662: \bibitem{na57omega} F.Antinori et al. J.Phys.G30 (2004) 823.

1663: \bibitem{fgsqm} F.Grassi,Y.Hama, T.Kodama and O.Socolowski Jr., 

1664: Proceedings of Strangeness in Quark Matter 2004,

1665: a parecer em J.Phys.G.

1666: \bibitem{Davidson92a} N.J.Davidson et al. Z. Phys. C56(1992)319.

1667: \bibitem{cl93} J.Cleymans et al. Z.Phys.C58 (1993) 347. 

1668: \bibitem{st99} Ster et al., Nucl. Phys. A661(1999)419c.

1669: \bibitem{to99} Tom\'asik et al., Heavy Ion Phys. 17 (2003) 105.

1670: \bibitem{ri97} R.A.Ritchie et al.,Phys. Rev. C75(1997) 535. 

1671: \bibitem{ye97} G.D.Yen et al., Phys. Rev. C56 (1997) 2210.

1672: \bibitem{ye99} G.D.Yen and M.Gorenstein, Phys.Rev. C59 (1999) 2788.

1673: \bibitem{le93}  J.Letessier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 3530.

1674: \bibitem{le98}J.Letessier et al., Phys. Rev. C59 (1999) 947.

1675: \bibitem{Grassi00a} F.Grassi, Y. Hama, T. Kodama and O.Socolowski Jr.,

1676: J.Phys.G.30 (2004) 853

1677: \bibitem{sandra} S.Padula, these Proceedings.

1678: \bibitem{Grassi00b} F.Grassi, Y. Hama, S.Padula and O.Socolowski Jr.,

1679:  Phys. Rev. C62 (2000) 044904.

1680: \bibitem{ko86} K.Kolehmainen and M.Gyulassy, Phys. Lett. B189 (1986) 203.

1681: 

1682: \bibitem{dessinhbt} U.A.Wiedemann and U.Heinz,

1683: Phys.Rept. 319 (1999) 145

1684: 

1685: \bibitem{hbt04} O. Socolowski Jr., F. Grassi, Y. Hama and T. Kodama,

1686: Phys.Rev.Lett.93 (2004)182301.

1687: 

1688: \bibitem{yogiro_review} Y. Hama, T. Kodama and O. Socolowski Jr.,

1689: these Proceedings.

1690: 

1691: \bibitem{raf83} M.Danos \& J.Rafelski, Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 671

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{ban83} B.Banerjee, N.K.Glendening \& T.Matsui, Phys. Lett. B127

1694: (1983) 453.

1695: 

1696: \bibitem{mu85}B.M\"{u}ller \& J.M.Eisenberg, Nucl. Phys. A 435 (1985) 791

1697: 

1698: \bibitem{vi91} A.Visher et al. Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 271.

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{russe} D.Yu.Peressunko \& Yu.E.Pokrovsky Nucl. 

1701: Phys. A624 (1997)738; hep-ph/0002068v2

1702: 

1703: 

1704: \bibitem{flor} W.Broniowski and W.Florkowski Phys.Rev. C65 (2002) 064905;

1705: AIP Conf.Proc. 660 (2003) 177. 

1706:  W.Broniowski, A.Baran and W.Florkowski

1707: AIP Conf.Proc. 660 (2003) 185.

1708: \bibitem{csernaicode} L.P. Csernai et al. hep-ph/0401005.

1709: 

1710: \end{thebibliography}

1711: \end{document}

1712: 

1713: 

1714: 

1715: 

1716: \begin{eqnarray}

1717: G(q,K)& = &\frac 1{(2\pi )^3(1-{\bf {\cal P}}_{{\cal F}})}\int_0^{2\pi }d\phi

1718: \int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }d\eta  \nonumber \\

1719: & \times & \{\int_0^{R_T}\rho \;d\rho \;\tau _{{\cal F}}\;M_T\;\cosh (Y-\eta) 

1720: %\nonumber \\

1721: %& &

1722: \times e^{i[\tau _{{\cal F}}(q_0\cosh \eta -q_L\sinh \eta )-\rho q_T\cos

1723: (\phi -\phi _q)]}  \nonumber \\

1724: & + & \!\int_{\tau _0}^{+\infty }\!\!\tau d\tau \rho _{{\cal F}}K_T\cos \phi 

1725: %\nonumber \\

1726: %& &

1727: \times \,e^{i[\tau (q_0\cosh \eta -q_L\sinh \eta )-\rho _{{\cal F}}q_T\cos

1728: (\phi -\phi _q)]}\}  

1729: %\nonumber \\

1730: %& \times &

1731: \times  e^{-M_T\cosh (Y-\eta )/T_{ps}(x)}, \nonumber \\

1732:  & &

1733: \end{eqnarray}

1734: 

1735: 

1736: 

1737: 

1738: