Observation of direct-photon collective flow in sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV Au+Au collisions
A. Adare, S. Afanasiev, C. Aidala, N.N. Ajitanand, Y. Akiba, H., Al-Bataineh, J. Alexander, K. Aoki, Y. Aramaki, E.T. Atomssa, R. Averbeck,, T.C. Awes, B. Azmoun, V. Babintsev, M. Bai, G. Baksay, L. Baksay, K.N., Barish, B. Bassalleck, A.T. Basye, S. Bathe, V. Baublis

TL;DR
This study measures the azimuthal anisotropy of direct photons in high-energy gold-gold collisions, revealing a significant flow signal at low transverse momentum that challenges existing thermal photon models.
Contribution
It provides the first measurement of direct photon v_2 at high energies, showing substantial flow at low p_T that is not predicted by current models.
Findings
Direct photons show substantial v_2 below 4 GeV/c.
At p_T > 4 GeV/c, direct photon v_2 is consistent with zero.
Thermal photon models underpredict observed v_2 at low p_T.
Abstract
The second Fourier component v_2 of the azimuthal anisotropy with respect to the reaction plane was measured for direct photons at midrapidity and transverse momentum (p_T) of 1--13 GeV/c in Au+Au collisions at sqr(s_NN)=200 GeV. Previous measurements of this quantity for hadrons with p_T < 6 GeV/c indicate that the medium behaves like a nearly perfect fluid, while for p_T > 6 GeV/c a reduced anisotropy is interpreted in terms of a path-length dependence for parton energy loss. In this measurement with the PHENIX detector at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider we find that for p_T > 4 GeV/c the anisotropy for direct photons is consistent with zero, as expected if the dominant source of direct photons is initial hard scattering. However, in the p_T < 4 GeV/c region dominated by thermal photons, we find a substantial direct photon v_2 comparable to that of hadrons, whereas model…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
