Paper detail

Challenging claims of "elliptic flow" by comparing azimuth quadrupole and jet-related angular correlations from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = $ 62 and 200 GeV

Background: A component of azimuth correlations from high-energy heavy ion collisions varying as $\cos(2ϕ)$ and denoted by symbol $v_2$ is conventionally interpreted to represent "elliptic flow," a hydrodynamic manifestation of the initial-state åoverlap geometry. Several numerical methods are used to estimate $v_2$, resulting in various combinations of "flow" and "nonflow" that reveal systematic biases in the $v_2$ estimates. QCD jets contribute strongly to azimuth correlations and specifically to the $\cos(2ϕ)$ component. Purpose: We question the extent of jet-related ("nonflow") bias in and hydrodynamic "flow" interpretations of $v_2$ measurements. Method: We introduce two-dimensional (2D) model fits to angular correlation data that distinguish accurately between jet-related correlation components and a {\em nonjet azimuth quadrupole} that might represent "elliptic flow" if that were relevant. We compare measured jet-related and "flow"-related data systematics and determine the jet-related contribution to $v_2$ measurements. Results: Jet structure does introduce substantial bias to conventional $v_2$ measurements, making interpretation difficult. The nonjet quadrupole exhibits very simple systematics on centrality and collision energy---the two variables factorize. Within a \auau centrality interval where jets show no indication of rescattering or medium effects the nonjet quadrupole amplitude rises to 60% of its maximum value. Conclusions: Disagreements between nonjet quadrupole systematics and hydro theory expectations, the large quadrupole amplitudes observed in more-peripheral \auau collisions and a significant nonzero value in \nn $\approx$ \pp collisions strongly suggest that the nonjet quadrupole does not arise from a hydrodynamic "flow" mechanism.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.