Paper detail

An Explanation for Heavy Quark Energy Loss Puzzle by Flow Effects

The heavy quark energy loss puzzle is explained by collective flow effects in a dynamic medium. The dead cone and LPM effect are found to be changed comparing to the static medium case. Instead of only one dead cone in the static medium, the collective flow induces two dead cones from two different kinds of processes. One is from the projectile emitting gluon process, the same as that in the static medium. The other is from the gluon emission off the exchanged gluon process, decreasing with increasing flow velocity $v_z$ along jet direction, which lead to the increase of heavy quark energy loss. The differences of the effective average energy loss among charm, bottom and light quarks are very little from a full 3D ideal hydrodynamic simulation for 0-10$%$ central Au-Au collisions at RHIC energy. This would yield similar high $p_{T}$ suppressions between light and heavy quarks for central Au-Au collisions.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.