Paper detail

Participant and spectator scaling of spectator fragments in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 19.6 and 22.4 GeV

Spectator fragments resulting from relativistic heavy ion collisions, consisting of single protons and neutrons along with groups of stable nuclear fragments up to Nitrogen (Z=7), are measured in PHOBOS. These fragments are observed in Au+Au (sqrt(sNN)=19.6 GeV) and Cu+Cu (22.4 GeV) collisions at high pseudorapidity ($η$). The dominant multiply-charged fragment is the tightly bound Helium ($α$), with Lithium, Beryllium, and Boron all clearly seen as a function of collision centrality and pseudorapidity. We observe that in Cu+Cu collisions, it becomes much more favorable for the $α$ fragments to be released than Lithium. The yields of fragments approximately scale with the number of spectator nucleons, independent of the colliding ion. The shapes of the pseudorapidity distributions of fragments indicate that the average deflection of the fragments away from the beam direction increases for more central collisions. A detailed comparison of the shapes for $α$ and Lithium fragments indicates that the centrality dependence of the deflections favors a scaling with the number of participants in the collision.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access82 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.

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.