Paper detail

Rapidity distribution of protons from the potential version of UrQMD model and the traditional coalescence afterburner

Rapidity distributions of both E895 proton data at AGS energies and NA49 net proton data at SPS energies can be described reasonably well with a potential version of the UrQMD in which mean-field potentials for both pre-formed hadrons and confined baryons are considered, with the help of a traditional coalescence afterburner in which one parameter set for both relative distance $R_0$ and relative momentum $P_0$, (3.8 fm, 0.3 GeV$/$c), is used. Because of the large cancellation between the expansion in $R_0$ and the shrinkage in $P_0$ through the Lorentz transformation, the relativistic effect in clusters has little effect on the rapidity distribution of free (net) protons. Using a Woods-Saxon-like function instead of a pure logarithmic function as seen by FOPI collaboration at SIS energies, one can fit well both the data at SIS energies and the UrQMD calculation results at AGS and SPS energies. Further, it is found that for central Au+Au or Pb+Pb collisions at top SIS, SPS and RHIC energies, the proton fractions in clusters are about 33$\%$, 10$\%$, and 0.7$\%$, respectively.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.