Review of Heavy-Ion Results from the CERN LHC

David EvansThe University of Birmingham

Strong and Electroweak Matter 2012 Swansea, UK, 10th – 13th July 2012

Outline of Talk• Introduction• The LHC Experiments• Selection of results from ALICE, ATLAS, & CMS

– Particle spectra & ratios– Flow– Jet and high pT suppression (RAA)– Heavy Flavour

• Summary

2

Aims of Heavy-Ion Programme

Study strongly interacting matter at extreme energy densities over large volumes and long time-scales (study of QCD at its natural scale, QCD ~ 200 MeV). Study the QCD phase transition from nuclear matter to a deconfined state of quarks and gluons - The Quark-Gluon Plasma. Study the physics of the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QCD under extreme conditions).

3

Phases of Strongly Interacting Matter

4

Lattice QCD, B = 0Lattice QCD, B = 0

Both statistical and lattice QCD predict that nuclear matter will undergo a phase transition, in to a deconfined state of quarks and gluons – a quark-gluon plasma, at a temperature of, T ~ 170 MeV and energy density, ~ 1 GeV/fm3.

Heavy-Ion collisions far exceed these temperatures & densities at the LHC.

colour

Heavy Ion Collisions

pre-equilibration QGP hadronisation freeze out

Colliders: AGS, SPS, RHIC, LHC

5

Create QGP by colliding ultra-relativistic heavy ions

SNN (GeV) = 5.4 19 200 2760 (5500)

6

Observables

Jets

Open charm, beauty 6

7 7

LHC Detectors

ALICE

CMS

ATLAS

Centrality Selection – Glauber Model

• Assume particle production is factorises into number of participants Npart number of collisions Ncoll

• AssumeNegative Binomial Distribution

for both f*Npart + (1-f) Ncoll

• Relation of percentile classes to Glauber values (<Npart>, etc) purely geometrical by slicing in impact parameter

Ener

gy in

ZD

C (a

.u.)

8

Charged Particle MultiplicitydNch/d versus sdNch/d (Pb-Pb) Theory

dNch/d = 1584 4 (stat.) 76 (syst.)

Larger than most model predictions – good agreement between LHC experiments

Rises with s faster than ppFits power law: Pb-Pb ~ s0.15

Bjorken formula estimates energy density, > 15 GeV/fm3 (3 x RHIC) 9

Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252301 (2010)Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 032301 (2011)

10

Bose–Einstein correlations(HBT)

• medium size: 2x larger than at RHIC– RoutRsideRlong ~ 300 fm3

• medium life time: 40% longer than at RHIC– ~ 10-11 fm/c

ALICE, Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011) 328.

QM enhancement of identical Bosons at small momentum difference

enhancement of e.g. like-sign pions at low momentum difference qinv=|p1-p2|,

Particle spectraLHC results agree well between experiments

Very significant changes in slope compared to RHICGood agree between experiments e.g. ALICE/ATLAS in this case

11

Identified Particle spectra

12

Very significant changes in slope compared to RHICMost dramatically for protonsVery strong radial flow, ≈ 0.66 even larger than predicted by most recent hydro

Blast Wave Fit

RHIC

Hydro Prediction

RHIC

Strangeness Enhancement

Multi-strange baryons enhanced with respect to pp. baryons enhanced more than s.

13

Thermal Models

Thermal model: A.Andronic et al., Phys. Lett. B673:142-145, 2009

Low Tch suggested by proton spectra excluded by ,

If exclude p, data agree with thermal GC model prediction Tch = 164 MeV

Thermal models can not fit all data simultaneously14

'Baryon anomaly': /K0

15

Baryon/Meson ratio still strongly enhanced x 3 compared to pp at pT = 3 GeV/c

- Enhancement slightly larger than at RHIC 200 GeV

- Maximum shift very little in pT compared to RHIC despite large change in underlying spectra !

Ratio at Maximum

RHIC/K0

x 3

Recent EPOS model calculation describes the data well: (K. Werner, arXiv: 1204.1394) (not decribed by coalescence model)

16

Does QGP have elliptic Flow?

Ed 3Nd 3p

12

d 2NpTdpTdy

1 2vn cos n r n1

Angle of reaction planeFourier coefficient

pT

Equal energy density contours

P

v2

v2 cos2

x

z

y

V1 = directed flow. V2 = elliptic flow.

Study angular dependence of emitted particles

16

Elliptic Flow

17

v2 shape is identical to

RHIC v 2 ~30% larger than

RHIC: larger <pT>,K reproduced by hydro calculation p ok for semi-peripheral but is a remaining challenge for central collisions

ALICE, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252302.

Hydro-calcs.: Shen, Heinz, Huovinen and Song, arXiv:1105.3226.

Elliptic Flow – Higher Orders

ATLAS

ATLAS

Higher-order coefficients (n>2) do not show strong centrality dependence – consistent with fluctuations in initial state geometry being driving force.

Superposition of flow harmonics, including higher orders, is sufficient to describe Ridge and Cone effects without implying medium response.

18

Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 032301 (2011)

Flow vs Centrality

Flow strongest for semi-peripheral collisions (central collisions too symmetric).

19

V2 at High PT

V2 drops to zero at high PT 20

Full Harmonic Spectrum

CMS

Measure multi Vn - Over-constrain HydroModels to get /s, initial conditions etc.

21

Elliptic Flow for Identified Particles

intermediate pT: dep. on particle specieshigh pT: v2 and v3 small: hydrodinamic flow negligibleIndication for non zero D meson v2 (3σ in 2 < pT < 6 GeV/c)Comparable with charged hadrons elliptic flow

22

23

Jets in heavy ion collisions• Studying deconfinement with jets

di-quark

quark

Interaction at the quark (parton) level The same interaction at the hadron level

pT

pL

pTOT

jet

soft beam jet

Fragmentation

radiatedgluons

heavy nucleus

key QCD prediction: jets are quenched

X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 1480

Free quarks not allowedwhen quark, anti-quark pairs are produced they fly apart producing back-to-back ‘jets’ of particles

Quarks remain free in QGP and lose energy while travelling through 23

JETS

24

25

Charged Jets in Pb-Pb

Large suppression of jets seen in central collisions

192 GeV168 GeV

10-20% peripheral

bin size: 0.1x0.147 GeV

102 GeV

0-10% central

Back-to-back high-energy jets seen in peripheral collisions

25

Jet Suppression

Significant imbalance between leading and sub-leading jets for central collisions26

Jet Suppression

Also seen by CMS27

Where is Jet Energy?

Jet energy unbalanced inside cone, but unbalanced in opp direction outside cone- Overall balance is achieved.

Another way to study this effect is to look at high pT suppression.

28

Nuclear Modification Factor

• particle interaction with medium

• stronger suppression at LHC• ~factor 7 at 7 GeV/c

29

TDppcoll

TDAA

TDAA dpdN

dpdpR

/

/)(

Leading

Hadron

quark-gluon plasma

Divide pT spectra in Pb-Pb by p-p (with suitable normalisation factor)

RAA vs centrality

• Suppression increases with centrality.

• Minimum remains around 6-7 GeV/c

30

RAA for s, Ws & Zs

No suppression as expected 31

RAA for different particles

• For hadrons containing heavy quarks, smaller suppression expected

• Enhancement of /K clearly seen• At high pT (>8-10 GeV/c) RAA universality for

light hadrons

Strange

32

Rcp of Jets

Jets suppressed by factor 2 in central w.r.t. peripheral collisions.Suppression flat with pT.

Rcp of muons from heavy flavour decays about 0.4 for central collisions.Again, flat for 0.4 < PT < 14 GeV 33

RAA for Heavy Flavour

●Hc,b → muons●D mesons (charm)●B → J/ψ (beauty)

CMSarXiv:1201.5069

• Charm and beauty: no evidence of mass effects yet

• Maybe a hint of hierarchy w.r.t pions!

Charm

34

35

RAA J/: Nuclear Modification Factor

Inclusive J/ RAA = 0.497 0.006 (stat.) 0.078 (syst.)

Rather small suppression and less than at RHIC (forward rapidity, PT > 0)

ALICE pT > 0 PHENIX pT > 0

almost no centrality dependence above Npart ~ 100Unlike at RHIC

RAA J/

Greater suppression seen at LHC in mid-rapidity, at pT > 6.5 GeV

And centrality dependent.

At low-pt, ALICE RAA ≥ 0.5, no centrality dependence→ behaviour clearly different to the one observed in PHENIX where a largersuppression and a strong centrality dependence is seenAt high-pt, larger suppression seen both by ALICE and CMS→ behaviour is similar to the one observed at low energy

36

Di-Muon Spectrum

37

ϒ Suppression

NΥ(2S)/NΥ(1S)|pp = 0.56 ± 0.13 ± 0.01 NΥ(2S)/NΥ(1S)|PbPb = 0.12 ± 0.03 ± 0.01NΥ(3S)/NΥ(1S)|pp = 0.21 ± 0.11 ± 0.02 NΥ(3S)/NΥ(1S)|PbPb < 0.07

Ratios not corrected for acceptance and efficiency 38

– ϒ(1S) RAA in7 centrality bins– first results on ϒ(2S) RAA– clear suppression of ϒ(2S)– ϒ(1S) suppressionconsistent with excitedstate suppression(~50% feed down)

ϒ(1S) and ϒ (2S) RAA

39

Summary• We have started to piece together the standard model of

heavy-ion collisions• We have measured many of the global features

– Phase transition temperature - Agrees with theory Tc ~ 164 MeV– Energy density - Over 10x critical energy density, > 15 GeV/fm3

– size & lifetime of system ~ 5000 fm3, ~ 10-11 fm/c• Started to measure dynamical features

– Very strong radial flow, ≈ 0.66 – Strong elliptical flow – ideal liquid– Strong suppression of jets and high pT particles– Little evidence of quark mass dependence on energy loss (unlike

predictions – although maybe a hint at this stage)– J/ suppressed less than RHIC at low PT - ϒ’ and ϒ’’ suppressed.

• We are at the early stages of a 10 year programme and have just scratched the surface.

• lots of work and exciting physics to look forward to.• Thank you for listening

40

Backup Slides

41

Chiral Magnetic Effect ('strong parity violation')

RP 2cos

B

+-

Same charge correlations positiveOpposite charge correlations negativeRHIC ≈ LHCsomewhat unexpected

should decrease with Nch

may decrease with √s

RHIC : (++), (+-) different sign and magnitudeLHC: (++),(+-) same sign, similar magnitude?

cos

+ -

B

?

RHIC

RHIC

Local Parity Violation in strong magnetic Field ? 42

Particle Identification

TPC dE/dx

ITS Silicon Drift/Strip dE/dx

TOF

• dE/dx:5% resolution

• Time-of flight,resolution: ~85 ps (Pb-Pb)~110 ps (p-p)

• TPC dE/dx: separate p from K up to 1.1 GeV

• Time of flight: separate K from up to ~ 2.2 GeV

Ω ΛΚ

43