1: %% This document created by Scientific Word (R) Version 3.5
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}%
4: \usepackage{citesort}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}%
7: \usepackage{amsfonts}%
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=latex2.dll}
10: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:45:01}
11: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
12: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}
13: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}
14: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \def\l{\label}
16: \def\nn{\nonumber \\}
17: \def\bi{\bibitem}
18: \textwidth=15.0 truecm
19: \textheight=22.5 truecm
20: \hoffset=-1.0 truecm
21: \voffset-.8in
22: \def\baselinestretch{1.1}
23: \parskip 3pt
24:
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28: \title{Wounded quarks and diquarks in heavy ion collisions}
29: \author{A.Bialas and A.Bzdak\thanks{Fellow of the Polish Science Foundation (FNP)
30: scholarship for the year 2006}\\M.Smoluchowski Institute of Physics \\Jagellonian University, Cracow\footnote{Address: Reymonta 4, 30-059 Krakow,
31: Poland; e-mail: bialas@th.if.uj.edu.pl}}
32: \maketitle
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35: A model in which the soft collisions of the nucleon are described in terms of
36: interactions of its two constituents (a quark and a diquark) is proposed. When
37: adjusted to describe precisely the elastic proton-proton scattering data and
38: supplemented with the idea of wounded constituents, the model accounts rather
39: well for the centrality dependence of particle production in the central
40: rapidity region at RHIC energies.
41:
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: The data on production of particles in relativistic heavy ion collisions
47: collected during the operation of the RHIC accelerator
48: \cite{AuAu-130,AuAu-19-200,AuAu-62} indicate that the wounded nucleon model
49: \cite{wnm}, does not describe correctly the observed particle multiplicities.
50: Contrary to the model predictions, the particle density per one wounded
51: nucleon in the central rapidity region (i) increases slowly with centrality of
52: the collision and (ii) substantially exceeds that observed in nucleon-nucleon collisions.
53:
54: This is not too surprising because the model was always considered only as a
55: first, rough approximation. Indeed, soon after the original model was
56: formulated, a possible improvement was proposed in the form of the wounded
57: quark model \cite{bcf}. Recently, it was suggested \cite{nou} that the wounded
58: quark model can account for the main features of the data in the central
59: rapidity region. To obtain this result, however, it was necessary to assume a
60: rather large number of quark-quark collisions in the nucleon-nucleon
61: scattering which is difficult to justify. If more realistic value of this
62: number is used, the model predicts larger multiplicities than actually
63: observed \cite{bw}. Nevertheless, these results show that the idea of a
64: wounded constituent model may be not far from reality.
65:
66: In the present paper we propose another generalization of the wounded nucleon
67: model, based on the idea that the nucleon is composed of two constituents: one
68: constituent quark forming a colour triplet and one constituent diquark forming
69: a colour antitriplet. We assume, furthermore, (i) that particle production
70: from these constituents is independent of the number of interactions they
71: underwent and (ii) both constituents produce the same number of particles. It
72: turns out that these two assumptions are sufficient to describe correctly the
73: PHOBOS data \cite{AuAu-130,AuAu-19-200,AuAu-62} on particle production in the
74: central ($y=0$) rapidity region.
75:
76: In the next section we formulate the model in more detail. In Section 3 the
77: determination of the model parameters from proton-proton elastic scattering is
78: described. Particle production in Au-Au collisions is discussed and compared
79: with the PHOBOS data in Section 4. Our comments and conclusions are listed in
80: the last section.
81:
82: \section{The model}
83:
84: As indicated in the introduction, we assume that in the soft collisions
85: nucleon can be approximated by a system composed of the two constituents - a
86: quark and a diquark - acting independently.
87:
88: For the process of particle production we assume that each constituent (quark
89: or diquark) which underwent at least one inelastic collision emits a certain
90: amount of secondary partons. This number is independent of the number of
91: collisions this constituent underwent afterwards. As this is obviously a
92: straightforward generalization of the wounded nucleon concept we call them
93: wounded constituents. Furthermore, we assume that the wounded constituent
94: quark and diquark emit secondary partons in approximately the same manner.
95:
96: The arguments in favour of such an approach are collected in the last section.
97: Here we would like to emphasize, however, that they may apply only to
98: \textit{soft} collisions, i.e. those in which the transverse mass of the
99: emitted partons does not exceed $\sim200$ MeV. The analogous limits for the
100: observed hadrons are, naturally, somewhat higher.
101:
102: It should be also pointed out that the proposed description can only be
103: justified far from the fragmentation regions of the projectile and of the
104: target. Therefore in this paper we restrict the comparison with the data to
105: the central rapidity region.
106:
107: The consequence of these assumptions, fundamental for our conclusions, is that
108: the differential multiplicity of partons emitted in the nucleus-nucleus
109: inelastic collisions can be represented as:%
110: \begin{equation}
111: \frac{dN_{AB}}{dy}=w_{A}^{(q+d)}F_{+}(y)+w_{B}^{(q+d)}F_{-}(y), \label{ab}%
112: \end{equation}
113: where $w_{A}^{(q+d)}$ and $w_{B}^{(q+d)}$ are the numbers of wounded
114: constituents (quarks and diquarks) in nucleus $A$ and $B$, whereas $F_{+}$,
115: $F_{-}$ are the differential multiplicities of partons emitted by one wounded
116: constituent in $A$ and $B$, respectively\footnote{This formula of course is
117: valid for any distribution, not necessarily in rapidity.}.
118:
119: When (\ref{ab}) is applied to nucleon-nucleon collisions we obtain:
120: \begin{equation}
121: \frac{dN_{NN}}{dy}=w_{N}^{(q+d)}\left[ F_{+}(y)+F_{-}(y)\right] . \label{nn}%
122: \end{equation}
123:
124: These two equations summarize the relation between particle production in
125: nucleon-nucleon and nucleus-nucleus collisions implied by the model.
126:
127: For the symmetric collisions ($A=B$) we obtain the particularly simple and
128: elegant result:
129: \begin{equation}
130: R_{AA}\equiv\frac{dN_{AA}/dy}{dN_{NN}/dy}=\frac{w_{A}^{(q+d)}}{w_{N}^{(q+d)}}.
131: \label{start}%
132: \end{equation}
133: Since the R.H.S. of this equation is independent of the phase-space region
134: where $R_{AA}$ is measured\footnote{Provided it is far enough from the
135: fragmentation regions.}, but depends on the centrality of the collision, this
136: is indeed a very strong consequence of the model.
137:
138: At the vanishing c.m. rapidity, (\ref{ab}) and (\ref{nn}) imply a simple
139: relation even for asymmetric collisions:
140: \begin{equation}
141: R_{AB}(y=0)\equiv\frac{dN_{AB}(y=0)/dy}{dN_{NN}(y=0)/dy}=\frac{w_{A}%
142: ^{(q+d)}+w_{B}^{(q+d)}}{2w_{N}^{(q+d)}}. \label{start'}%
143: \end{equation}
144:
145: To make a full use of (\ref{start}) and (\ref{start'}), it is necessary to
146: evaluate $w_{N}^{(q+d)}$ and $w_{A}^{(q+d)},w_{B}^{(q+d)}$ as function of the
147: impact parameter of the collision. The corresponding formulae are obtained by
148: a straightforward counting of probabilities \cite{cm,wnm}. For the average
149: number of wounded quarks and diquarks in each of the colliding nuclei
150: ($w_{A}^{(q+d)}=W_{q}+W_{d}$), at a fixed impact parameter $b$, one obtains:%
151: \begin{equation}
152: W_{a}(b)=\frac{A}{\sigma_{AA}(b)}\int T(b-s)\left( 1-\left[ 1-\sigma
153: _{aq}T_{aq}\left( s\right) \right] ^{A}\left[ 1-\sigma_{ad}T_{ad}\left(
154: s\right) \right] ^{A}\right) d^{2}s, \label{www}%
155: \end{equation}
156: where $a$ denotes $q$ or $d$, $\sigma_{AA}(b)\equiv d^{2}\sigma_{AA}/d^{2}b$
157: is the inelastic differential $AA$ cross-section\footnote{For heavy nuclei
158: $\sigma_{AA}(b)=1$, except at very large impact parameters which are of no
159: interest even for most peripheral events measured at RHIC. In case of $AuAu$
160: collisions, using the optical approximation, we have verified that
161: $\sigma_{AuAu}(b)=1$ for $b\leq14$ fm, corresponding to $W\geq5$.}, $T(b)$ is
162: the nuclear thickness function (normalized to unity). $T_{ab}(b)$ is given by:%
163: \begin{equation}
164: T_{ab}(b)=\frac{1}{\sigma_{ab}}\int\sigma_{ab}(s)T(b-s)d^{2}s, \label{tab}%
165: \end{equation}
166: where $\sigma_{ab}(s)\equiv{d}^{2}{\sigma_{ab}}/{d^{2}s}$ are the differential
167: cross-sections of the constituents (in impact parameter plane) and
168: $\sigma_{ab}=\int\sigma_{ab}(s)d^{2}s$ are the corresponding total inelastic
169: cross-sections ($ab$ denotes $qq,qd$ or $dd$).
170:
171: Note that the formulae (\ref{www}) and (\ref{tab}) take into account the
172: impact parameter dependence of the constituent cross-sections. If this
173: dependence is neglected [$\sigma_{ab}(s)=\sigma_{ab}\delta^{2}(s)$],
174: $T_{ab}(b)\equiv T(b)$.\footnote{We have verified that this is a poor
175: approximation for peripheral collisions.}
176:
177: For the number of wounded constituents in nucleon-nucleon collisions we have,
178: similarly, $w_{N}^{(q+d)}=w_{q}+w_{d}$ with:
179: \begin{equation}
180: w_{q,d}=\frac{1}{\sigma_{NN}}\int h_{q,d}(b)d^{2}b, \label{wq+wd}%
181: \end{equation}
182: where $\sigma_{NN}$ is the total inelastic nucleon-nucleon cross-section and
183: $h_{a}$ is given by:%
184: \begin{align}
185: h_{a}(b) & =\int d^{2}s_{q}d^{2}s_{q}^{\prime}d^{2}s_{d}d^{2}s_{d}^{\prime
186: }D(s_{q},s_{d})D(s_{q}^{\prime},s_{d}^{\prime})\nonumber\\
187: & \left\{ 1-\left[ 1-\sigma_{ad}(b+s_{d}^{\prime}-s_{a})\right]
188: [1-\sigma_{aq}(b+s_{q}^{\prime}-s_{a})]\right\} ,
189: \end{align}
190: with $D(s_{q},s_{d})$ being the effective thickness of the nucleon.
191:
192: It remains to determine the cross-sections of the constituents and their
193: distribution inside the nucleon. This demands a detailed analysis of the
194: nucleon-nucleon collisions, as discussed in the next section.
195:
196: \section{Nucleon-nucleon collisions}
197:
198: The distribution of the constituents inside the nucleon and their
199: cross-sections are not known. We propose to determine them from the analysis
200: of the data on proton-proton elastic scattering.
201:
202: Consider first the inelastic nucleon-nucleon collisions. Following the idea
203: that the interaction can be described as the interaction of two independent
204: constituents in each of the nucleons, we have \cite{cm,Glauber}:
205: \begin{align}
206: 1-\sigma(s_{q},s_{d};s_{q}^{\prime},s_{d}^{\prime};b) & =[1-\sigma
207: _{qq}(b+s_{q}^{\prime}-s_{q})][1-\sigma_{qd}(b+s_{d}^{\prime}-s_{q}%
208: )]\nonumber\\
209: & [1-\sigma_{dq}(b+s_{q}^{\prime}-s_{d})][1-\sigma_{dd}(b+s_{d}^{\prime
210: }-s_{d})],
211: \end{align}
212: and%
213: \begin{equation}
214: \sigma(b)=\int d^{2}s_{q}d^{2}s_{q}^{\prime}d^{2}s_{d}d^{2}s_{d}^{\prime
215: }D(s_{q},s_{d})D(s_{q}^{\prime},s_{d}^{\prime})\sigma(s_{q},s_{d}%
216: ;s_{q}^{\prime},s_{d}^{\prime};b),
217: \end{equation}
218: where $s_{q}(s_{q}^{\prime})$, $s_{d}(s_{d}^{\prime})$ are transverse
219: positions of the quarks and diquarks in the two colliding nucleons.
220:
221: From the unitarity condition we deduce:
222: \begin{equation}
223: t_{el}(b)=1-\sqrt{1-\sigma(b)}. \label{tel}%
224: \end{equation}
225: This allows one to evaluate the elastic and total cross-sections. By comparing
226: them with data one can obtain information on the parameters of the model.
227:
228: Since the nuclear cross-sections are not sensitive to the exact shape of the
229: impact parameter dependence of the constituent cross-sections (as the nuclear
230: radius is much larger than that of the nucleon), we parametrized $\sigma
231: _{ab}(s)$ using simple Gaussian forms:
232: \begin{equation}
233: \sigma_{ab}(s)=A_{ab}e^{-s^{2}/R_{ab}^{2}}. \label{pab}%
234: \end{equation}
235:
236: The radii $R_{ab}$ were constrained by the condition $R_{ab}^{2}=R_{a}%
237: ^{2}+R_{b}^{2}$ where $R_{a}$ denotes the quark or diquark's radius (a natural
238: constraint for the Gaussians).
239:
240: From (\ref{pab}) we deduce the total inelastic cross sections: $\sigma
241: _{ab}=\pi A_{ab}R_{ab}^{2}$ and we also demand that the ratios of
242: cross-sections satisfy the natural condition:\footnote{We have verified that
243: the main results of this paper are not sensitive to the exact values of these
244: ratios. A detailed analysis of elastic pp scattering (and, particularly of
245: this assumption) will be given elsewhere \cite{ab-ab}.}%
246: \begin{equation}
247: \sigma_{qq}:\sigma_{qd}:\sigma_{dd}=1:2:4, \label{124}%
248: \end{equation}
249: expressing the idea that there are twice as many partons in the constituent
250: diquark than those in the constituent quark. This allows to express $A_{qd}$
251: and $A_{dd}$ in terms of $A_{qq}$.
252:
253: For the distribution of the constituents we again take a Gaussian:
254: \begin{equation}
255: D(s_{q},s_{d})=\frac{1+\lambda^{2}}{\pi R^{2}}e^{-(s_{q}^{2}+s_{d}^{2})/R^{2}%
256: }\delta^{2}(s_{d}+\lambda s_{q}). \label{D}%
257: \end{equation}
258:
259: The parameter $\lambda$ has the physical meaning of the ratio of the quark and
260: diquark masses and satisfies, $1/2\leq\lambda=m_{q}/m_{d}\leq1$ (the delta
261: function guarantees that the center-of-mass of the system moves along the
262: straight line).
263:
264: Thus, finally, the model contains $5$ free parameters.
265:
266: Using this formulation and the formula (\ref{tel}) we have evaluated the
267: elastic and total proton-proton cross-sections and adjusted the parameters by
268: demanding that (i) total inelastic cross section (ii) slope of the elastic
269: cross section (iii) position of the first diffractive minimum in elastic cross
270: section and (iv) height of the second maximum in elastic scattering are in
271: agreement with data.\begin{figure}[h]
272: \begin{center}
273: \includegraphics[scale=1.3]{NN_31.eps}
274: \end{center}
275: \caption{Comparison of the experimental differential cross section with the
276: results of the quark-diquark model. Data at $\sqrt{s}=30.5$ GeV are taken from
277: \cite{elastic}.}%
278: \label{Fig_31}%
279: \end{figure}
280:
281: Data at all ISR energies \cite{elastic,p(0)} were analyzed. It turns out that
282: the model works very well indeed which is by no means a trivial
283: conclusion\footnote{For instance, an analogous calculation performed in the
284: model with the assumption that the proton consists of three uncorrelated
285: constituent quarks led to negative conclusion \cite{pp-3q}.}. One example of
286: such calculation is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig_31}, where the differential cross
287: section $d\sigma/dt$ at the ISR energy $30.5$ GeV, evaluated from the model,
288: is compared with experimental data \cite{elastic}. One sees a rather
289: impressive agreement. A detailed discussion goes beyond the scope of this
290: paper and will be given elsewhere \cite{ab-ab}. Here we are interested only in
291: the resulting values for $\sigma_{qq}/\sigma_{NN}$ and $w_{N}^{(q+d)}$ which
292: are necessary for evaluation of the R.H.S. of (\ref{start}).
293:
294: From the point of view of the present investigation, the most important
295: observation is that both the ratio $\sigma_{qq}/\sigma_{NN}$ and the average
296: number of wounded constituents in nucleon-nucleon collisions $w_{N}^{(q+d)}$
297: seem almost entirely independent of the details of the model (provided that,
298: as explained above, the parameters are adjusted to describe correctly the
299: proton-proton elastic data). The obtained values are:
300: \begin{equation}
301: \sigma_{qq}/\sigma_{NN}=1.147\div1.148;\;\;\;w_{N}^{(q+d)}=w_{q}%
302: +w_{d}=1.182\div1.186.
303: \end{equation}
304: These values\footnote{Note that $\sigma_{qq}/\sigma_{NN}>1/9$, indicating
305: presence of shadowing.}, supplemented by the relation (\ref{124}), are used
306: for evaluation of the R.H.S. of (\ref{start}).
307:
308: \section{Au+Au collisions}
309:
310: Having determined the parameters of the model from the elastic pp data, we
311: could evaluate its predictions for the particle production in Au-Au collisions
312: which is the main goal of this investigation.
313:
314: \vskip 0.2cm\begin{figure}[h]
315: \begin{center}
316: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{R.eps}
317: \end{center}
318: \caption{{Predictions of the wounded quark-diquark model (for }$W\geq5${)
319: compared with those from the wounded nucleon model.}}%
320: \label{Fig_R}%
321: \end{figure}
322:
323: Since the PHOBOS data are presented versus the number of the wounded nucleons
324: in both colliding nuclei ($2w_{A}^{(N)}=W$), we have to calculate also
325: $w_{A}^{(N)}$ as a function of the impact parameter of the collision. This can
326: be obtained from the well-known formula \cite{wnm}:
327: \begin{equation}
328: w_{A}^{(N)}(b)=\frac{A}{\sigma_{AA}(b)}\int T(b-s)\left\{ 1-[1-\sigma
329: _{NN}T_{NN}(s)]^{A}\right\} d^{2}s,
330: \end{equation}
331: with $\sigma_{NN}(s)$ in a Gaussian form with $\sigma_{NN}(0)=0.92$ taken from
332: our estimates (it agrees very well with the data \cite{p(0)}).
333:
334: For the nuclear density we have been using the standard Woods-Saxon formula
335: with the nuclear radius $R_{Au}=6.37$ fm, and $d=0.54$ fm.
336:
337: In Fig. \ref{Fig_R} the predicted ratio $R_{AuAu}/w_{Au}^{(N)}$ (which shows
338: explicitly the deviation of our model from the traditional wounded nucleon
339: model) is plotted versus $2w_{Au}^{(N)}=W$ for $W\geq5$. One sees that the
340: model explains naturally the increase of the production multiplicity from one
341: wounded nucleon with increasing centrality of the collision.
342:
343: The comparison of the model with the PHOBOS data on particle production per
344: one wounded nucleon is shown in Fig. \ref{AA_Gauss_fig}.
345:
346: \vskip 0.2cm\begin{figure}[h]
347: \begin{center}
348: \includegraphics[scale=0.97]{AA1G.eps} \hspace{0.2cm}
349: \includegraphics[scale=0.97]{AA2G.eps}
350: \end{center}
351: \caption{The predictions of the wounded quark-diquark model (for $W\geq5$)
352: compared with the data from PHOBOS coll. \cite{AuAu-130,AuAu-19-200,AuAu-62}.
353: The shaded areas reflect the inaccuracy in the pp data. }%
354: \label{AA_Gauss_fig}%
355: \end{figure}
356:
357: The data on particle production in pp collisions, necessary to obtain the
358: model predictions, were taken from UA5 collaboration, as quoted in
359: \cite{AuAu-19-200,AuAu-62}\footnote{For $\sqrt{s}=62.4$ and $200$ GeV they are
360: taken directly from UA5 data, for $\sqrt{s}=19.6$ and $130$ GeV they are
361: interpolated.}. They are also shown in the Fig. \ref{AA_Gauss_fig} as points
362: at $W=2$. This introduces some uncertainty, as indicated by the shadowed
363: areas\footnote{Unfortunately, the pp data from PHOBOS coll. are still not
364: available.}.
365:
366: The inelastic proton-proton cross sections needed for this calculations were
367: taken as $\sigma_{NN}=32$ mb, $36$ mb, $41$ mb and $42$ mb at energies
368: $\sqrt{s}=19.6,$ $62.4,$ $130$ and $200$ GeV, respectively. Our model then
369: gives the following values of the ratio of the integrated inelastic
370: quark-quark to proton-proton cross sections: $\sigma_{qq}/\sigma_{NN}=0.147,$
371: $0.148,$ $0.148,$ $0.149$. Finally, the number of wounded quarks and diquarks
372: in a single proton-proton collision $w_{q}+w_{d}=1.183,$ $1.185,$ $1.186,$ $1.187.$
373:
374: One sees that, within the experimental accuracies a very good agreement both
375: in shape and in absolute value is obtained.
376:
377: \section{Comments and discussion}
378:
379: Several comments are in order.
380:
381: (i) The concept of wounded nucleons and of wounded constituents is based on
382: two ideas: (a) during the interaction, the ''wounded'' object acts as one unit
383: and (b) particle emission process takes much longer time than it is needed for
384: the projectile to pass the internuclear distance. These assumptions can be
385: qualitatively justified only for \textit{soft} collisions where the momentum
386: transfer and transverse mass of the emitted partons are small enough.
387:
388: The first condition requires that the momentum transferred to the projectile
389: is smaller than its inverse size. For the size of order of $1$ fm, this limits
390: the momentum transfer to about $200$ MeV.
391:
392: The second condition demands that the emission time:
393: \begin{equation}
394: t\sim\frac{\gamma}{m_{\perp}}\approx\frac{e^{y}}{2m_{\perp}},
395: \end{equation}
396: where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the emitted particle (parton) in the
397: rest frame of the target nucleus and $y$ is its rapidity in the same frame,
398: should be significantly greater than the intranuclear distance. For $y>2$ this
399: limits the transverse mass of the emitted partons below $200$ MeV. Of course
400: for the observed final hadrons this limit may be significantly higher.
401:
402: These estimates are, surely, rather crude. A more detailed verification of the
403: model for particles with various masses and transverse momenta will be of
404: great interest, as it may help to understand better the very concept of a
405: wounded constituent.
406:
407: (ii) As seen from these arguments, the model is not expected to apply in the
408: fragmentation region of the projectile and target where, moreover, important
409: energy-momentum conservation effects, as well as secondary interactions inside
410: the nucleus must be present. Therefore we focus our attention on the central
411: rapidity region which, at RHIC energies, is well separated from the
412: fragmentation regions.
413:
414: (iii) The model assumes that a wounded quark produces the same number of
415: secondary partons as a wounded diquark. This is not unreasonable since the
416: colour content of both constituents is the same ($3$ and $\bar{3}$) and that,
417: probably, the colour charge of the projectile is the main factor determining
418: the emission intensity. We admit, however, that since the actual dynamics of
419: the soft production process is not yet understood, this argument can be
420: questioned. The good agreement of the model with data, as presented in this
421: paper, may thus serve as an (indirect) confirmation of the important role of
422: colour dynamics in the process of particle production.
423:
424: (iv) The predictions of the model described in this paper refer to the
425: emission of ''primary'' partons and do not take into account further
426: development of the system during its expansion and final formation of hadrons.
427: The observed agreement with data indicates that the space-time development of
428: the system, despite presence of the well-known collective effects, does not
429: introduce drastic changes in its global characteristics. This may be
430: considered as an argument in favour of the laminar hydrodynamic expansion
431: suggested already by MC simulations of this process which seems to indicate
432: very small viscosity of the created medium \cite{hydro}.\footnote{This
433: argument is due to W. Czyz (private communication).}
434:
435: (v) We have verified that the main properties of the quark-diquark picture of
436: the nucleon obtained from analysis of the pp elastic data are not sensitive to
437: the details of the calculations (several forms of the distribution of
438: constituents and of their cross-sections were considered). The typical values
439: of the parameters are $R_{q}\approx0.3$ fm, $R_{d}\approx0.75$ fm,
440: $R\approx0.3$ fm, $A_{dd}\approx0.55$, $A_{qd}\approx0.5$, $A_{qq}\approx
441: 1$.\footnote{$A_{qq}$ depends somewhat on the value of $\lambda$ which is not
442: very well determined. For $\lambda$ not far from $1/2$, $A_{qq}=1$.} Thus in
443: our model the diquark appears to be rather large, comparable to the size of
444: the proton. It is remarkable that this feature agrees well with other
445: estimates \cite{Wilczek}, based on rather different arguments.
446:
447: (vi) In this paper we have only discussed the symmetric Au-Au collisions. It
448: would be also interesting to check the model for asymmetric collisions. We
449: have verified that in case of d-Au collisions at $y=0$ the formula
450: (\ref{start'}) gives the result which does not differ very much (less than
451: $10$ \%) from that of the wounded nucleon model. Thus the observed good
452: agreement of the wounded nucleon model \cite{wnm-deuteron} with the PHOBOS
453: data on d-Au collisions \cite{data-dAu} is not destroyed in our approach.
454:
455: In conclusion, we have formulated a model in which the soft collisions of the
456: nucleon are described in terms of interactions of its two constituents: a
457: quark and a diquark. The model can be adjusted to describe very precisely the
458: elastic proton-proton scattering data. Supplemented with the idea of wounded
459: constituents, the model accounts rather well for the centrality dependence of
460: particle production in the central rapidity region at RHIC energies.
461:
462: \bigskip
463:
464: \textbf{Acknowledgements}
465:
466: We have greatly profited from discussion with Wieslaw Czyz to whom we also
467: like to thank for a critical reading of the manuscript. Discussions with B.
468: Wosiek, M. Praszalowicz and correspondence with G. Ripka are also highly appreciated.
469:
470: This investigation was partly supported by the MEiN research grant 1 P03B 045
471: 29 (2005-2008).
472:
473: \begin{thebibliography}{9} %
474:
475: \bibitem {AuAu-130}B. B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. C65 (2002) 061901.
476:
477: \bibitem {AuAu-19-200}B. B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. C70 (2004) 021902.
478:
479: \bibitem {AuAu-62}B. B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. C74 (2006) 021901.
480:
481: \bibitem {wnm}A. Bialas, M. Bleszynski, W. Czyz, Nucl. Phys. B111 (1976) 461.
482:
483: \bibitem {bcf}A. Bialas, W. Czyz, W. Furmanski, Acta Phys. Pol. B8 (1977) 585;
484: A. Bialas, W. Czyz, L. Lesniak, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 2328.
485:
486: \bibitem {nou}R. Nouicer, AIP Conf. Proc. 828 (2006) 11, nucl-ex/0512044. S.
487: Eremin, S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C67 (2003) 064905; P. K. Netrakanti, B.
488: Mohanty, Phys. Rev. C70 (2004) 027901; Bhaskar De, S. Bhattacharyya, Phys.
489: Rev. C71 (2005) 024903. See also E. K. G. Sarkisyan, A. S. Sakharov, AIP Conf.
490: Proc. 828 (2006) 35 and hep-ph/0410324 where the quark model is used to
491: evaluate the energy deposition in the collision.
492:
493: \bibitem {bw}B. Wosiek, private communication; H. Bialkowska, nucl-ex/0609006.
494:
495: \bibitem {cm}W. Czyz, L. C. Maximon, Ann. of Phys. 52 (1969) 59.
496:
497: \bibitem {Glauber}R. J. Glauber, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1.
498: Interscience, New York 1959.
499:
500: \bibitem {ab-ab}A. Bialas, A. Bzdak, to be published.
501:
502: \bibitem {elastic}E. Nagy et al., Nucl. Phys. B150 (1979) 221; A. Breakstone
503: et al., Nucl. Phys. B248 (1984) 253; N. Amos et al., Nucl. Phys. B262 (1985) 689.
504:
505: \bibitem {p(0)}U. Amaldi, K. R. Schubert, Nucl. Phys. B166 (1980) 301.
506:
507: \bibitem {pp-3q}A. Bialas, K. Fialkowski, W. Slominski, M. Zielinski, Acta
508: Phys. Pol. B8 (1977) 855.
509:
510: \bibitem {hydro}See, e.g., E. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. A750 (2005) 64, and
511: references quoted there.
512:
513: \bibitem {Wilczek}R. Jaffe, F. Wilczek, Phys. World 17 (2004) 25; Phys. Rev.
514: Lett. 91 (2003) 232003; M. Cristoforetti, P. Faccioli, G. Ripka, M. Traini,
515: Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 114010.
516:
517: \bibitem {wnm-deuteron}A. Bialas, W. Czyz, Acta Phys. Pol. B36 (2005) 905.
518:
519: \bibitem {data-dAu}B. B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. C72 (2005) 031901.
520: \end{thebibliography}
521: \end{document}