Paper detail

Charged and strange hadron elliptic flow in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV

We present the results of an elliptic flow analysis of Cu+Cu collisions recorded with the STAR detector at 62.4 and 200GeV. Elliptic flow as a function of transverse momentum is reported for different collision centralities for charged hadrons and strangeness containing hadrons $K_{S}^{0}$, $Λ$, $Ξ$, $ϕ$ in the midrapidity region $|eta|<1.0$. Significant reduction in systematic uncertainty of the measurement due to non-flow effects has been achieved by correlating particles at midrapidity, $|η|<1.0$, with those at forward rapidity, $2.5<|η|<4.0$. We also present azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions at 200 GeV to help estimating non-flow effects. To study the system-size dependence of elliptic flow, we present a detailed comparison with previously published results from Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. We observe that $v_{2}$($p_{T}$) of strange hadrons has similar scaling properties as were first observed in Au+Au collisions, i.e.: (i) at low transverse momenta, $p_T<2GeV/c$, $v_{2}$ scales with transverse kinetic energy, $m_{T}-m$, and (ii) at intermediate $p_T$, $2<p_T<4GeV/c$, it scales with the number of constituent quarks, $n_q$. We have found that ideal hydrodynamic calculations fail to reproduce the centrality dependence of $v_{2}$($p_{T}$) for $K_{S}^{0}$ and $Λ$. Eccentricity scaled $v_2$ values, $v_{2}/ε$, are larger in more central collisions, suggesting stronger collective flow develops in more central collisions. The comparison with Au+Au collisions which go further in density shows $v_{2}/ε$ depend on the system size, number of participants $N_{part}$. This indicates that the ideal hydrodynamic limit is not reached in Cu+Cu collisions, presumably because the assumption of thermalization is not attained.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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.