arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 19 Jan 2018

Transcription

1 version. Eclusivit of p-n interactions within p-a collisions Thomas A. Trainor CENPA 359, Universit of Washington, Seattle, WA 9895 (Dated: October 3, 8) A geometric Glauber model applied to p-p or p-a collisions assumes that participant partons within a projectile nucleon independentl follow eikonal trajectories, just as for projectile nucleons within target nuclei, and interact independentl with an target nucleons encountered along their trajector. A noneikonal quadratic relation for dijet production observed for p-p collisions suggests that such assumptions for p-n collisions ma be incorrect. Data from p-a collisions supports that conclusion. For both isolated p-p collisions and for p-n interactions within p-a collisions a proton projectile interacts with onl a single target nucleon within a brief time interval. Multiple overlapping p-n collisions are inhibited, suggesting the eclusivit of p-n interactions within p-a collisions. arxiv:8.579v [hep-ph] 9 Jan 8 PACS numbers:.38.qk, 3.87.Fh, 5.75.Ag, 5.75.Bh, 5.75.Ld, 5.75.Nq I. INTRODUCTION A geometric Glauber Monte Carlo (MC) model applied to composite A-B nuclear collisions assumes that constituents of A follow straight-line trajectories through partner B according to the eikonal approimation and interact (collide) with some fraction of constituents in B (and the reverse) according to some cross section σ. Constituents that have interacted at least once are participants. Participants must lie within an A-B overlap region depending on A-B impact parameter b, and each participant in A ma interact with partners in B onl within its own eikonal corridor defined b σ. The geometric Glauber MC has been applied to nucleon constituents within nucleus-nucleus (A-A) collisions [] and to parton (quantum chromodnamic quark or gluon) constituents within nucleon-nucleon (N-N) collisions []. Recentl, a geometric Glauber MC was applied to 5 TeV p-pb collisions [3] to predict p-pb centralit (e.g. impact parameter b or nucleon participant number ) vs some observable quantit (e.g. hadron mean charge densit ρ = n ch / η within some pseudorapidit acceptance η). The Glauber-inferred relation ( ρ ) is ver different from one derived from a stud in Ref. [5] of ensemble-mean transverse momentum p t data from the same collision sstem [] based on a two-component (soft + hard) model () of hadron production near midrapidit (η ) in high-energ nuclear collisions. The -based stud reviewed analsis methods and resulting differences and suggested that the Glauber model as tpicall applied to A-B collisions is not a valid description of asmmetric p-a collisions. In particular, conventional assumptions leading to assignment of certain nucleons as participants based on the possibilit of multiple simultaneous p-n interactions of a single projectile proton ma be questioned. The alternative is eclusivit, in which a projectile proton can interact (collide) with onl a single target nucleon within some time interval. For purposes of this letter specific vocabular is required to distinguish between p-n encounters determined b a geometric model and effective (e.g. inelastic) p-n collisions that result in significant involvement of constituent partons. According to the eclusivit hpothesis participants arise onl from isolated inelastic collisions. II. THE AND p-p COLLISIONS In the contet parton constituents in projectile nucleons ma produce hadrons within composite A-B collisions b longitudinal fragmentation to neutral hadron pairs (soft) or b transverse fragmentation (of largeangle-scattered partons) to jets (hard). A specific hadron production model must specif which partons in which nucleons ma interact with which partners. Soft and hard components, as distinguished b specific manifestations in spectra [ 9] and correlations [, ], are represented respectivel b charge densities ρ s and ρ h, with total hadron charge densit ρ = ρ s + ρ h. Information about N-N collision mechanisms ma be derived from isolated proton-proton (p-p) collisions and from p-a (e.g. p-pb) data. The two sources provide complementar evidence for p-n eclusivit. Hadron production in high-energ p-p collisions is observed to fluctuate dramaticall [3]. The source of fluctuations ma be one of two limiting cases: (a) A conventional model of composite A-B collisions based on the eikonal approimation [] is applied to p-p collisions []. Impact parameter b between colliding protons, each with internal structure represented b a parton distribution function (PDF), is random. Onl partons within fluctuating p-p overlap regions (participants) interact and, for each parton, onl with partners within an eikonal corridor along its trajector determined b a partonic cross section. Fluctuations in b and proton structure produce fluctuations in hadron production. (b) Alternativel, what fluctuates in p-p collisions is the depth of splitting cascades on momentum fraction that produce participant partons within each proton. The proton PDF is onl a mean-value representation of fluctuating cascades. In a given collision each participant parton from one proton can interact with an participant in the partner proton. There is no geometric eclusion because impact parameter is not relevant and the eikonal

2 approimation is apparentl not valid for p-p collisions. If the eikonal approimation were relevant to p-p collisions ρ h ρ /3 s should appl, b analog with the equivalent for nucleus-nucleus (A-A) collisions the number of binar N-N collisions N bin ( /) /3 [] with p-p participant partons represented b ρ s and dijets represented b ρ h N bin. Instead, quadratic relation ρ h α ρ s represents p-p spectrum and correlation data accuratel over a large range of midrapidit charge densities [, 7]. Relative to a non-single-diffractive (NSD) p-p mean value ρ NSD, charge densities ρ varing from a fraction of ρ NSD up to ρ NSD correspond to approimatel -fold increase in dijet production [7]. The noneikonal quadratic relation manifested b p-p data suggests that an participant parton, as represented b ρ s, ma interact within a p-p collision to produce MB dijets, as represented b ρ h. Collision partners are not restricted to an eikonal corridor nor are parton participants confined to a limited p-p overlap region. Scenario (b) is thus strongl supported b p-p data and (a) is rejected, suggesting that p-p collisions follow an all or nothing strateg for constituent interactions. III. EVIDENCE FROM p-pb DATA Further information on N-N collision properties is derived from recent analsis of ensemble mean p t and p t spectrum data from p-pb collisions. analsis of p t data from p-pb collisions permits inference of the relation between and ρ for average p-n collisions within p-pb collisions. Centralit analsis of p-pb collisions based on a geometric Glauber model provides competing predictions for the same relationship, and large differences emerge. The for A-B p t with a low-p t acceptance cut is p t p ts + (n s )ν(n s ) p thnn (n s ), () ξ + (n s ) ν(n s ) where ξ.75 is the soft-component fraction admitted b the acceptance cut, (n s ) ρ hnn / ρ snn and ν N bin /. For p-a data evolution of factors (n s ) ν(n s ) from strictl p-p like to alternative behavior is observed near a transition point ρ s, but p thnn (n s ) p th is assumed fied for p-a (no jet modification) [5]. Factor (n s ) is modeled as a simple etrapolation of p-p (n s ) = α {[/ ρ s ] n + [/f(n s )] n } /n, () where f(n s ) = ρ s + m ( ρ s ρ s ) and n 5. Below the transition near ρ s 5, (n s ) α ρ s as for p-p collisions []. Above the transition (n s ) m α ρ s with m.. Given (n s ) / = α ρ s /(n s ) = /[ ν(n s )] completes the p-pb centralit model [5]. Figure (left) shows uncorrected p t data vs corrected charge densit ρ []. The solid curve is Eq. () and the limiting case for p-p collisions is the dashed curve. The two curves and data coincide precisel up to a transition point near ρ [5]. p ts = p ts /ξ =./.75 GeV/c is the uncorrected p t soft component. The solid dots are predicted values of p t for seven p-pb centralit classes from 8-% to -5% based on the geometric Glauber analsis of Ref. [3]. The dotted curve labeled MC represents HIJING [5] and AMPT [] predictions for p-pb collisions from Ref. []. The large difference between p-pb and p t data vs Glauber-based MC predictions for the same sstem is the main result. t (GeV/c) p NSD p-p 5 TeV p-pb p-pb Glauber p ts MC 5 n ch / η 5.5 NSD Glauber n ch / η FIG. : Left: Uncorrected ensemble-mean p t or p t vs corrected ρ = n ch / η for 5 TeV p-pb collisions from Ref. [] (open squares). The solid curve is the p-pb. The solid points are predictions derived from the Glauber centralit analsis in Ref. [3]. The Glauber MC curve (dotted) is taken from Fig. 3 of Ref. []. Right: vs ρ for the Glauber analsis of Ref. [3] (dash-dotted), for ideal scaling (dashed) and for the p-pb p t (solid). Figure (right) shows p-pb centralit ( vs ρ ) estimates for 5 TeV p-pb from the (solid) [5] and geometric Glauber MC (dash-dotted) [3]. The dashed curve represents the assumption that n ch for p-a collisions [3]. Hatched bands represent limiting values based on statistical significance. Whereas the Glauber MC sets an upper limit ρ 55 corresponding to, the description is consistent with p-pb p t data from Ref. [] etending up to ρ 5 with 8. The p-pb can be further tested b comparisons with spectrum data. The for A-B spectra is [5] ρ ( t, ρ ) = ρ snn Ŝ ( t ) + N bin ρ hnn Ĥ ( t ), (3) where Ŝ( t ) and Ĥ( t ) are fied model functions. Figure (left) shows identified-pion p t spectra from the same p-pb collision sstem [7] transformed to transverse rapidit t as in Ref. []. The spectra are normalized b soft-component densit ρ s = ( /) ρ snn with parameter values from Ref. [8]. According to Eq. (3) normalized spectra X( t ) can be compared with softcomponent model Ŝ( t ) as defined in Ref. [9]. Figure (right) shows difference X( t ) Ŝ( t ) normalized b (n s )ν(n s ) = α ρ snn ν(n s ) using values from Ref. [5], with no changes to accommodate these data. According to Eq. (3) the result should be comparable with

3 3 X( t ) = [/ (b)] ρ ( t ) / ρ snn - - S -3 3 t [X( t ) S ( t )] / (b) ν(b) - - H -3 3 t tegral of a differential cross section in the left panel. Whereas the centralit trend attains its b/b limit near = 8 the Glauber MC cross section is not full integrated on (b/b ) until. The disagreement between (b) trends is the central issue for this letter. Further information can be obtained b eamining the p-pb geometric Glauber MC in detail. IV. GEOMETRIC GLAUBER MONTE CARLO FIG. : Left: Identified-pion spectra for 5 TeV p-pb collisions from Ref. [7] transformed to t with Jacobian m tp t/ t and normalized b quantities (thinner curves of several stles). Ŝ ( t) is the soft-component model. Right: Difference X( t) Ŝ(t) normalized b (b)ν(b) = α ρsnn ν(b) using values reported in Ref. [5] (thinner curves). The dashed curve is hard-component model Ĥ ( t). the hard-component model Ĥ ( t ), with parameters (ȳ t, σ t, q) = (.5,.59, 3.9) for 5 TeV p-p collisions as reported in Ref. [9]. The dashed curve is Ĥ( t ) with (ȳ t, σ t, q) (.5,.5, 3.9). The shift of model centroid ȳ t to a lower value for pions is epected based on fragmentation functions for identified hadrons as in Ref. []. The describes p-pb spectra accuratel. The p-pb centralit analsis in Ref. [3] is based on a geometric Glauber MC simulation of the differential cross-section distribution on which can be compared with the inferred distribution from the. Figure 3 (left) shows the geometric-glauber differential cross section on from Ref. [3] (dash-dotted) etending beond =. The solid curve is the corresponding cross section inferred from p t data as described in Ref. [8]. The result suggests that the true maimum for central p-pb collisions is near 8. Those centralit trends are consistent with Fig. (right). (/σ ) dσ / d Glauber 5 TeV p-pb b / b.8... Glauber FIG. 3: Left: Differential cross section on determined b a geometric Glauber MC (dash-dotted) [3] and b a analsis of p t data (solid) [8]. Right: Running integrals σ/σ of curves on the left converted to (b/b = σ/σ ). Figure 3 (right) shows impact-parameter b/b = σ/σ trends on, where σ/σ is the running in- A p-pb Glauber MC can be based on the following data: The 5 TeV p-pb cross section is σ = πb barns = fm or b 8 fm ( ) fm (Pb + proton radii). A Pb diameter is spanned b about 8 tangent nucleons. The 5 TeV p-p inelastic cross section is σ pp = πb pp 7 mb = 7 fm or b pp.5 fm. The Pb nuclear volume is V Pb 5 fm 3 and the mean nucleon densit is 8/5./fm 3. To simplif the MC nucleons are randoml distributed within a cube of side fm maintaining mean densit./fm 3. Nucleons outside a Pb nucleus (sphere of radius 7. fm) are discarded. Simulated nuclei then contain 8 nucleons on average. A flu of protons is simulated b trajectories randoml distributed across the - plane. For a given projectile impact point its eikonal corridor is defined b a circle of radius.5 fm consistent with σ pp 7 mb. An nucleon center within that corridor marks an encounter. It s participant status depends on the model: For the geometric Glauber MC all encounters are participants. Figure (a) shows a simulated Pb nucleus with randoml distributed nucleons. The large-circle radius is 7. fm and the nucleon radii are.85 fm. A random distribution leads to large densit fluctuations including significant voids. Figure (b) shows the view along z for a projectile with b. The bold circle with radius.5 fm denotes the eikonal corridor. The dashed circle with radius.85 fm represents a target nucleon. The thin circles are nucleons within the eikonal corridor (encounters). Figs. (c) and (d) are side views of the eikonal corridor showing encountered target nucleons (circles). The horizontal lines mark eight slices about.8 fm thick. The purpose of this simulation is to determine the effect of p-n eclusivit the hpothesis that a projectile proton ma interact with onl one target nucleon at a time, where that epression should reflect observations. In this simulation once a projectile proton has collided with one nucleon (upon entering the Pb volume) it cannot collide with another nucleon before moving along z some minimum distance z off. For eample, in Fig. (c) and (d) the actual participants (collisions rather than encounters) for z off =. fm are denoted b bold circles. For this simulation there are 9 encounters (total circles) vs collisions (bold circles) and si occupied slices for a central p-pb collision. Note that ten overlapping non-participant encounters occur within the first two occupied slices. For each simulated Pb nucleus about 7 projectile protons are randoml distributed on - within the Pb

4 - - - (a) (b) b/b b/b z - - (c) z - - (d) FIG. 5: Left: Participant number vs p-pb centralit in the form b/b for the geometric Glauber MC (open circles, encounters) and the eclusivit model (solid dots, true participants). The simulated Pb nucleus consists of a random nucleon distribution (overlapping nucleons) with mean densit./fm 3. Right: As at left but for a periodic Pb nucleus with the same mean densit and no nucleon overlap V. SUMMARY FIG. : (a): MC-simulated Pb nucleus with mean densit./fm 3 and radius 7. fm (bold circle). (b): View along z for a projectile proton with zero impact parameter. The bold circle denotes its eikonal corridor with radius.5 fm. The light circles are nucleons with centers within the corridor. The dashed circle is representative, with radius.85 fm. (c) and (d): Side views of the eikonal corridor with included nucleons (encounters). Bold circles are true participants (collisions) corresponding to eclusivit condition z off =. fm. perimeter. Each projectile is propagated through the encountered nucleons within its eikonal corridor. The sum of those encounters (plus the projectile) is for the geometric Glauber model. As described above an eclusivit condition z off is also applied to determine the minimum interval from one p-n collision to the net, from one true participant to the net according to the the eclusivit model. The sum is for that model. Figure 5 (left) shows vs p-pb centralit in the form b/b for the geometric Glauber model (open circles) and for the eclusivit model (solid dots). Although the scatter in the data is substantial (due in part to Poisson densit fluctuations) the general trends are consistent with Fig. 3 (right). A high-statistics geometric- Glauber simulation shows encounters etending out to 3 or more [3], whereas the maimum number of participants for central p-pb collisions is for z off. fm (compare to nucleon diameter.7 fm or p-p impact parameter b pp =.5 fm corresponding to σ pp = 7 mb). Figure 5 (right) shows the same procedure applied to a simulated periodic Pb nucleus with the same mean densit but no nucleon overlap. Although nucleon periodicit leads to the band structure the general results are again consistent with Fig. 3 (right). The large difference does not result from details of Pb nucleus structure. Determination of p-pb centralit b two methods leads to ver different results. A geometric Glauber model based on the eikonal approimation applied to 5 TeV p-pb collisions (and to p-n collisions) assuming that produced hadron densit is proportional to number of nucleon participants (with p-n binar collisions N bin = ) leads to estimates greater than and hadron multiplicit per participant pair near 5 for central collisions. Estimates based on a two-component (soft + hard) model () of hadron production applied to ensemble-mean transverse momentum p t lead to less than 8 with mean hadron multiplicit per participant pair increasing to about 3 for central p-pb collisions. The applied to p t spectrum and correlation data from p-p collisions reveals that the hard component (dijet production) increases as the square of the soft component (proton dissociation) whereas eponent /3 would be epected according to the eikonal approimation. The result can be interpreted to conclude that for p-p collisions centralit (impact parameter) is not relevant and that each participant parton in one proton can interact with an parton in the partner proton: a p-p collision is all or nothing for nucleon constituent partons. Within the contet these p-p and p-a results can be combined to conclude that p-n interactions within p-a collisions are eclusive: The projectile proton can interact (collide) with onl one target nucleon within a certain distance (comparable to the proton diameter), although other target nucleons ma overlap the same volume. p-n eclusivit limits the total number of participant target nucleons to 8 or less even for central collisions. If correct that conclusion has significant implications for collision models based on the eikonal approimation and for interpretations of data based on a geometric Glauber model.

5 5 [] M. L. Miller, K. Regers, S. J. Sanders and P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 5 (7). [] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phs. Commun. 78, 85 (8); T. Sjöstrand and M. van Zijl, Phs. Rev. D 3, 9 (987); T. Sjöstrand, Comput. Phs. Commun. 8, 7 (99); [3] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phs. Rev. C 9, no., 95 (5). [] B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phs. Lett. B 77, 37 (3). [5] T. A. Trainor, arxiv:78.9. [] T. A. Trainor and D. J. Prindle, Phs. Rev. D 93, 3 (). [7] J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phs. Rev. D 7, 3 (). [8] T. A. Trainor, Int. J. Mod. Phs. E 7, 99 (8). [9] T. A. Trainor, Phs. Rev. D 89, 9 (). [] G. Agakishiev, et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phs. Rev. C 8, 9 (). [] R. J. Porter and T. A. Trainor (STAR Collaboration), J. Phs. Conf. Ser. 7, 98 (5). [] R. J. Porter and T. A. Trainor (STAR Collaboration), PoS CFRNC, (). [3] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phs. J. C 77, no., 33 (7). [] T. A. Trainor and D. J. Prindle, hep-ph/7. [5] X.-N. Wang, Phs. Rev. D, R9 (99); X.-N. Wang and M. Gulass, Phs. Rev. D, 35 (99). [] Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang and S. Pal, Phs. Rev. C 7, 9 (5). [7] B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phs. Lett. B 78, 5 (). [8] T. A. Trainor, arxiv:8.58 [9] T. A. Trainor, J. Phs. G, no. 7, 758 (7). [] T. A. Trainor and D. T. Kettler, Phs. Rev. D 7, 3 ().