ISMD 2007

Berkeley, August 5-9 2007

Chairman: Nu Xu

Seria ISMD

• Początek: Paryż 1970 (Lestienne,Salmeron, Sosnowski, Krzywicki + Wróblewski itd.), Helsinki 71, Zakopane 72 (Kraków-Warszawa), Pawia 73..., Tihany 2000, Datong 01, Alushta 02, Kraków 2003, Sonoma 04, Kromeriz 05, Parati 06

• Nazwy zmienne, ale zawsze „multiparticle” (w latach 70’ mały margines fizyki cząstek)

Program

1.Jet physics (Salgado, Takai) 7 referatów2.Fluctuations and Correlations (Padula, Strickland,

Soltz, Roland) 133.Small x and Diffraction (Kovchegov, Staśto) 104.Soft Interactions (Cebra, Soldner-Rembold) 105.Astroparticle Physics (Drescher, Huentemeyer) 66.Particle Propagating in Dense Matter (Casalderrey-

Solana, Dremin, Jia, Fuqian Wang) 157.Heavy Quark Production (Bauer, Gary, Huang) 11

Statystyka

• Uczestnicy: 85, afiliacje: 44 USA, 11 RFN, 4 Brazylia, Rosja, 3 Polska, Włochy, 2 Czechy, Francja, Węgry, 1 Chiny, Holandia, Indie, Izrael, Japonia, Kanada, Słowacja, Szwajcaria, Szwecja, Ukraina.

• Uwaga: afiliacje, nie narodowości!

• Referaty: 73: 7+13+10+10+6+15+11+1.

Polscy uczestnicy i referaty

• D.Antończyk (Frankfurt), Z.Chajecki (Ohio), P.Danielewicz (Michigan), KF (UJ), A.Galas (IFJ), A.Kisiel (Ohio), R.Maj (AŚ), A.Staśto (Penn), M.Szuba (LBL)+B.Jacak,?

• P.Danielewicz-imaging review (MSU)• A.Kisiel-STAR and Therminator (OSU)• A.Galas-production in DIS, p from ep• KF-HERMES and absorption

Co naprawdę nowego?

• Astrocząstki: ograniczenie GZK działa, korelacje - źródła?

• Asymetria eliptyczna: przyczynek korelacji

• Korelacje cząstkowe

• Odkrycie b, b‘,b

Ograniczenie GZK, klastry

• Kai Martens (HiRes, U. of Utah)

• Glennys Farrar (New York U.)

Results from HiResand Observation of the GZK

Suppression

Kai Martens

High Energy Astrophysics Institute

Department of Physics, University of Utah

for the HiRes Collaboration

HR1HR2

HiRes Monocular Spectra

flux x E3

HR1: longer exposure high energy

HR2: larger elevation coverage low energy

energy scale uncertainties:

- missing energy 5%- energy loss rate 10%- fluorescence yield 6%- atmospheric conditions 4%- photometric calibration10%

total (energy): 17%

flux uncertainty: 30% (@ =2.8)

data:HR1: 5/97-6/05HR2: 12/99-8/04

Old plots:AGASAAGASA (E–20%)

avoid double counting:remove HR1 events that also

are in the HR2 data set

Broken power-law fits:a.) one vs. two breakpoints:

2 reduced by 23.4 4.5

b.) compare measured data to red line extrapolation:expect: 39.9observe: 13 4.8 (P=7x10-7)

Quacks like duck, don’t

it?

ee

eepn

HiRes Composition Guided Fits flux

source model:all sources inject with E

= 2.42uniform with redshiftevolution (1+z)m

m = 2.46

future: astronomy inspired redshift evolution

composition as measured !

Rescaling energies to dip=> consistency!

• Left: published spectra x E3 from different expts

• Right: spectra after shifting energies by factors

AG = 0.9; HR = 1.2; Yk = 0.75; Auger = 1.2

• Shift => consistent normalizations of all spectra, for Auger = 1.4.

(HR = 1.2 + difference in AF yield assumptions => Auger ~ 1.35)

UHECR multiplets• Cluster candidate in published AGASA-HiRes data:

– 5 events, chance probability 2 10-3

– Energies (15), 38, 53, 55, 78 EeV (1 EeV = 1018 eV)– (b, l) = (55o,145o) (“Ursa Major Cluster”)

• Projecting from AGASA-HiRes suggests with a dataset like Auger~ 1 multiplet with 8-10 UHECRs 1 multiplet with ~ 6 UHECRs~ 5 multiplets with ~ 4 UHECRs

• Need good analysis tools to avoid using false multiplets. Maximum Likelihood method has been developed (GRF)

• If (when!) such multiplets are found, they will give a powerful constraint on GMF and sources.

Wnioski z astrofizyki

• Ograniczenie GZK (strata energii w produkcji na fotonach tła) jednak chyba działa, więc dziesiątki modeli zbędne.

• Być może są klastry kierunkowe dla najwyższej energii (niezaburzone przez pole magnetyczne); Auger?

Published by AAAS

The Pierre Auger Collaboration et al., Science 318, 938 -943 (2007)

Fig. 1. Layout of the Pierre Auger Southern Observatory

Published by AAAS

The Pierre Auger Collaboration et al., Science 318, 938 -943 (2007)

Fig. 2. Aitoff projection of the celestial sphere in galactic coordinates with circles of radius 3.1{degrees} centered at the arrival directions of the 27 cosmic rays with

highest energy detected by the Pierre Auger Observatory

Azimuthal asymmetry – czy to naprawdę „elliptic flow”?

• Rudy Hwa (Oregon U.)

• Gunther Roland (STAR, MIT)

Conclusion

• Azimuthal anisotropy is mainly a ridge effect. No fast thermalization or hydrodynamical flow are needed.

• Hydrodynamics may still be applicable after some time, but it is not needed for v2, for which the relevant physics at <1 fm/c is crucial --- semi-hard scattering at qT<3.

• For pT<1.5 GeV/c, the analysis is simple, and the result can be expressed in analytic form that agrees with data.

• For pT>1.5 GeV/c, shower partons must be considered. Jet dominance (>3GeV/c) will saturate v2.

• No part of the study suggests that the medium behaves like a perfect fluid.

STAR analysis

• Znane efekty korelacyjne (clusters, minijets...) dają przyczynki do asymetrii azymutalnej niezwiązane z przepływem

• Należy je odjąć przed porównaniem danych z modelami hydrodynamicznymi

• STAR, PHOBOS (Krzysztof Woźniak)

Nowe dane o korelacjach

• Stefan Kniege (Frankfurt U., CERES)

• Jason Ulery (Purdue U., STAR):

• 3-particle correlations to discriminate between the models of „back” jet emission

Summary• Non gaussian shape on the away side of

2 particle correlation function

• Shape of the correlation function for different charge combinations indicate

charge ordering in the fragmentation process

•Shape of the 3 particle correlations indicate cone like structure on the away side of the jet

Further investigations are needed to draw final conclusions

Summary and Conclusions• Three 3-particle analyses at RHIC.• PHENIX Analysis

– Shape consistent with conical emission simulation.

• STAR Cumulant Analysis– Non-zero 3-particle correlations.

• STAR 2-Component Analysis– Consistent with conical emission at about 1.45

radians in central Au+Au.– PT independent angle suggests Mach-cone

emission.

Odkrycie nowych pięknych barionów

• W tablicach z 2006 roku tylko b

• Teraz identyfikowane: b, b*, b, b

• Tania Moulik (U. of Kansas, CDF+D0): przewidywania i wyniki doświadczalne

b Results

Likelihood Fit Results : M (DØ) = 5774 11 (stat.) 15 (syst.) MeV -- [1]

M (CDF)= 5792.9 2.4 (stat.) 1.7 (syst.) GeV ) – [2] (Theory : 5.793 - 5.814)

Likelihood Fit Results : M (DØ) = 5774 11 (stat.) 15 (syst.) MeV -- [1]

M (CDF)= 5792.9 2.4 (stat.) 1.7 (syst.) GeV ) – [2] (Theory : 5.793 - 5.814)

15.2 4.4

17.5 4.3

[1] PRL 99, 1052001 (2007)[2] arXiv:0707.0589

Podsumowanie nowych barionów

• Masy i rozpady +/- jak oczekiwano.

• Dlaczego model kwarków działa tu tak dobrze?

Zalecenia i perspektywy

• Warto oglądnąć strony dostępne pod „Program” na stronie ISMD 2007 http://www-rnc.lbl.gov/ISMD/index.html

• Następne ISMD w Hamburgu (DESY) w dniach 16-20.09.2008 (Hannes Jung + Gösta Gustafson), a przedtem

• WPCF (Workshop on Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy) w Krakowie 10-14.09.08 (Andrzej Białas + KF, G.Miśkowiec etc. w OC, J.Pluta, K.Zalewski wśród conveners...)