View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
1
Have we seen Local Parity Violation at RHIC?
● Introduction
● What the present data tell us
● Alternative observable
Based on: Adam Bzdak, VK and Jinfeng Liao, PRC81 031901(R) (2010), [arXiv:0912.5050] J. Liao, VK, and Adam Bzdak, in preparation
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
2
CPT is in good shape
C
P
T
onjecture
ress Release
hink
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
4
The basic observable
X (in-plane)
Y (out-of-plane) Py (out-of-plane)
Charge Separation orElectric Dipole in Pt Space(along out-of-plane direction)
Complications:• hard to identify direction of magnetic field (reaction plane)P. E-by-E• Direction of dipole either parallel OR anti-parallel to magnetic field
Px (in-plane)
Momentum space
Coordinate space
Bcurrent
→ only variance of parity-odd operator can be observed
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
6
The STAR measurement(a closer look)
Py(out-of-
plane)
Px(in-
plane)
+
Concentrate on same sign pairs for the moment
+
Set
Py(out-of-
plane)
Px(in-
plane)
++
for both configurations
How to distinguish?
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
7
The STAR measurement(which not so many discuss)
Py(out-of-
plane)
Px(in-
plane)
++
Py(out-of-
plane)
Px(in-
plane)
++
Data favor in-plane back-to-back correlation
Add to the mix
same sign
opp. sign.
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
10
Using simple math
STAR measures for same sign pairs in Au+Au:
Therefore:
No out-of-plane correlation for same charge pairs
Opposite charge:
in-plane
in-plane
out-of-plane
out-of-plane
Same Charge
opp. Charge
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
12
The argument in the STAR papers:B
out, B
in = Background (in and out of plane)
P = Parity violating signal
Thus:
The data show
Thus existence of CME would require:
●“Juuuuust right scenario” a.k.a fine tuning !!!●We need to understand the background●We need differential information on
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
14
How realistic is the assumption ?
Two particle density:
Prominent example: HBT with respect to the reaction plane
Implies: “background” correlations are independent of reaction plane
Reaction plane dependence always enters via v2 !
Pt –
and eta dependence of v2 needs to be taken into account
Sources discussed in context of CME: Clusters (STAR, F. Wang), Resonances (STAR), .Anomaly (Asakawa et al)...
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
15
Pt-dependence
Correlated pairs areonly moderately harder thanthermal pairs
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
16
Alternative observable
Quadrupolemoment
Reaction planeangle
Charged dipolemoment
Charged dipoleangle
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
20
Correlations can lead to similar dipole angel; but reduce magnitude
/home/vkoch/Desktop/INT2010/parity_talk.odp
21
SummaryP
y(out-of-
plane)
Px(in-
plane)
++
● Data favor in-plane back-to-back correlation for same charge
– CME predicts out of plane
● Presence of CME requires fine-tunining: Background = - CME ?
● Need differential information on
– Be aware that pt- and eta
dependencemay be differernt
● Alternative observable: measure charge dipole (orientation and magnitude)
● How about proton-proton????