Measurement of $D^0$ azimuthal anisotropy at mid-rapidity in Au+Au collisions at \sNN = 200\,GeV
STAR Collaboration: L. Adamczyk, J. K. Adkins, G. Agakishiev, M. M., Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed, N. N. Ajitanand, I. Alekseev, D. M. Anderson, R., Aoyama, A. Aparin, D. Arkhipkin, E. C. Aschenauer, M. U. Ashraf, A. Attri, G., S. Averichev, X. Bai, V. Bairathi, A. Behera, R. Bellwied

TL;DR
This paper reports the first measurement of the elliptic flow ($v_2$) of $D^0$ charm mesons in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV, showing charm quarks reach thermal equilibrium with the medium, consistent with hydrodynamic models.
Contribution
It provides the first $v_2$ measurement of $D^0$ mesons at RHIC and demonstrates charm quarks' thermalization in the quark-gluon plasma.
Findings
$D^0$ $v_2$ matches hydrodynamic predictions for $p_T<4$ GeV/c.
Charm $v_2$ is similar to light mesons in 10-40 ext{ }centrality.
Models with specific charm diffusion coefficients reproduce the results.
Abstract
We report the first measurement of the elliptic anisotropy () of the charm meson at mid-rapidity (\,\,1) in Au+Au collisions at \sNN = 200\,GeV. The measurement was conducted by the STAR experiment at RHIC utilizing a new high-resolution silicon tracker. The measured in 0--80\% centrality Au+Au collisions can be described by a viscous hydrodynamic calculation for transverse momentum () less than 4\,GeV/. The as a function of transverse kinetic energy (, where ) is consistent with that of light mesons in 10--40\% centrality Au+Au collisions. These results suggest that charm quarks have achieved local thermal equilibrium with the medium created in such collisions. Several theoretical models, with the temperature--dependent, dimensionless charm spatial diffusion coefficient…
| compare with | -value | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| SUBATECH Ozvenchuk et al. (2014); *SUBATECH2; *SUBATECHPrivateCom | 24 | 15.2 / 8 | 0.06 |
| TAMU c quark diff. He et al. (2012); *TAMU2; *TAMUPrivateCom | 512 | 10.0 / 8 | 0.26 |
| TAMU no c quark diff. He et al. (2012); *TAMU2; *TAMUPrivateCom | - | 29.5 / 8 | 2 |
| Duke Cao et al. (2015) | 7 | 35.7 / 8 | 2 |
| LBT Cao et al. (2016) | 36 | 11.1 / 8 | 0.19 |
| PHSD Berrehrah et al. (2014); *PHSD2 | 512 | 8.7 / 7 | 0.28 |
| 3D viscous hydro Pang et al. (2015); *hydroPrivateCom | - | 3.6 / 6 | 0.73 |
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.
STAR Collaboration
Measurement of azimuthal anisotropy at mid-rapidity in Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV
L. Adamczyk
AGH University of Science and Technology, FPACS, Cracow 30-059, Poland
J. K. Adkins
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 40506-0055
G. Agakishiev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
M. M. Aggarwal
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
Z. Ahammed
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata 700064, India
N. N. Ajitanand
State University Of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794
I. Alekseev
Alikhanov Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow 117218, Russia
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
D. M. Anderson
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
R. Aoyama
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan,
A. Aparin
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
D. Arkhipkin
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
E. C. Aschenauer
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
M. U. Ashraf
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
A. Attri
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
G. S. Averichev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
X. Bai
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
V. Bairathi
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Jatni 752050, India
A. Behera
State University Of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794
R. Bellwied
University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204
A. Bhasin
University of Jammu, Jammu 180001, India
A. K. Bhati
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
P. Bhattarai
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
J. Bielcik
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague, 115 19, Czech Republic
J. Bielcikova
Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR, 250 68 Prague, Czech Republic
L. C. Bland
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
I. G. Bordyuzhin
Alikhanov Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow 117218, Russia
J. Bouchet
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
J. D. Brandenburg
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
A. V. Brandin
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
D. Brown
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015
I. Bunzarov
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
J. Butterworth
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
H. Caines
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
M. Calderón de la Barca Sánchez
University of California, Davis, California 95616
J. M. Campbell
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
D. Cebra
University of California, Davis, California 95616
I. Chakaberia
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
P. Chaloupka
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague, 115 19, Czech Republic
Z. Chang
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
N. Chankova-Bunzarova
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
A. Chatterjee
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata 700064, India
S. Chattopadhyay
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata 700064, India
X. Chen
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
J. H. Chen
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
X. Chen
Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000
J. Cheng
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
M. Cherney
Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178
W. Christie
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
G. Contin
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
H. J. Crawford
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
S. Das
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
L. C. De Silva
Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178
R. R. Debbe
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
T. G. Dedovich
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
J. Deng
Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250100
A. A. Derevschikov
Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
L. Didenko
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
C. Dilks
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
X. Dong
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
J. L. Drachenberg
Lamar University, Physics Department, Beaumont, Texas 77710
J. E. Draper
University of California, Davis, California 95616
L. E. Dunkelberger
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
J. C. Dunlop
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
L. G. Efimov
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
N. Elsey
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
J. Engelage
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
G. Eppley
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
R. Esha
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
S. Esumi
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan,
O. Evdokimov
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
J. Ewigleben
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015
O. Eyser
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
R. Fatemi
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 40506-0055
S. Fazio
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
P. Federic
Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR, 250 68 Prague, Czech Republic
P. Federicova
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague, 115 19, Czech Republic
J. Fedorisin
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
Z. Feng
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
P. Filip
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
E. Finch
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT, 06515
Y. Fisyak
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
C. E. Flores
University of California, Davis, California 95616
L. Fulek
AGH University of Science and Technology, FPACS, Cracow 30-059, Poland
C. A. Gagliardi
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
D. Garand
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
F. Geurts
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
A. Gibson
Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383
M. Girard
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
L. Greiner
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
D. Grosnick
Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383
D. S. Gunarathne
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
Y. Guo
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
A. Gupta
University of Jammu, Jammu 180001, India
S. Gupta
University of Jammu, Jammu 180001, India
W. Guryn
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
A. I. Hamad
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
A. Hamed
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
A. Harlenderova
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague, 115 19, Czech Republic
J. W. Harris
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
L. He
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
S. Heppelmann
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
S. Heppelmann
University of California, Davis, California 95616
A. Hirsch
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
G. W. Hoffmann
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
S. Horvat
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
T. Huang
National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101
B. Huang
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
X. Huang
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
H. Z. Huang
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
T. J. Humanic
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
P. Huo
State University Of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794
G. Igo
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
W. W. Jacobs
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
A. Jentsch
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
J. Jia
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
State University Of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794
K. Jiang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
S. Jowzaee
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
E. G. Judd
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
S. Kabana
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
D. Kalinkin
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
K. Kang
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
K. Kauder
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
H. W. Ke
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
D. Keane
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
A. Kechechyan
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
Z. Khan
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
D. P. Kikoła
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
I. Kisel
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies FIAS, Frankfurt 60438, Germany
A. Kisiel
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
L. Kochenda
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
M. Kocmanek
Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR, 250 68 Prague, Czech Republic
T. Kollegger
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies FIAS, Frankfurt 60438, Germany
L. K. Kosarzewski
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
A. F. Kraishan
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
P. Kravtsov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
K. Krueger
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439
N. Kulathunga
University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204
L. Kumar
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
J. Kvapil
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague, 115 19, Czech Republic
J. H. Kwasizur
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
R. Lacey
State University Of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794
J. M. Landgraf
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
K. D. Landry
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
J. Lauret
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
A. Lebedev
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
R. Lednicky
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
J. H. Lee
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
X. Li
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
C. Li
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
W. Li
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
Y. Li
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
J. Lidrych
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague, 115 19, Czech Republic
T. Lin
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
M. A. Lisa
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
H. Liu
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
P. Liu
State University Of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794
Y. Liu
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
F. Liu
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
T. Ljubicic
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
W. J. Llope
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
M. Lomnitz
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
R. S. Longacre
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
S. Luo
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
X. Luo
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
G. L. Ma
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
L. Ma
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
Y. G. Ma
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
R. Ma
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
N. Magdy
State University Of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794
R. Majka
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
D. Mallick
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Jatni 752050, India
S. Margetis
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
C. Markert
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
H. S. Matis
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
K. Meehan
University of California, Davis, California 95616
J. C. Mei
Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250100
Z. W. Miller
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
N. G. Minaev
Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
S. Mioduszewski
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
D. Mishra
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Jatni 752050, India
S. Mizuno
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
B. Mohanty
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Jatni 752050, India
M. M. Mondal
Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar 751005, India
D. A. Morozov
Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
M. K. Mustafa
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
Md. Nasim
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
T. K. Nayak
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata 700064, India
J. M. Nelson
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
M. Nie
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
G. Nigmatkulov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
T. Niida
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
L. V. Nogach
Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
T. Nonaka
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan,
S. B. Nurushev
Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
G. Odyniec
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
A. Ogawa
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
K. Oh
Pusan National University, Pusan 46241, Korea
V. A. Okorokov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
D. Olvitt Jr
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
B. S. Page
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
R. Pak
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
Y. Pandit
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
Y. Panebratsev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
B. Pawlik
Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Cracow 31-342, Poland
H. Pei
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
C. Perkins
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
P. Pile
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
J. Pluta
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
K. Poniatowska
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
J. Porter
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
M. Posik
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
A. M. Poskanzer
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
N. K. Pruthi
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
M. Przybycien
AGH University of Science and Technology, FPACS, Cracow 30-059, Poland
J. Putschke
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
H. Qiu
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
A. Quintero
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
S. Ramachandran
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 40506-0055
R. L. Ray
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
R. Reed
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015
M. J. Rehbein
Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178
H. G. Ritter
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
J. B. Roberts
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
O. V. Rogachevskiy
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
J. L. Romero
University of California, Davis, California 95616
J. D. Roth
Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178
L. Ruan
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
J. Rusnak
Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR, 250 68 Prague, Czech Republic
O. Rusnakova
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague, 115 19, Czech Republic
N. R. Sahoo
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
P. K. Sahu
Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar 751005, India
S. Salur
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
J. Sandweiss
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
M. Saur
Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR, 250 68 Prague, Czech Republic
J. Schambach
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
A. M. Schmah
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
W. B. Schmidke
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
N. Schmitz
Max-Planck-Institut fur Physik, Munich 80805, Germany
B. R. Schweid
State University Of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794
J. Seger
Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178
M. Sergeeva
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
P. Seyboth
Max-Planck-Institut fur Physik, Munich 80805, Germany
N. Shah
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
E. Shahaliev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
P. V. Shanmuganathan
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015
M. Shao
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
A. Sharma
University of Jammu, Jammu 180001, India
M. K. Sharma
University of Jammu, Jammu 180001, India
W. Q. Shen
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
Z. Shi
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
S. S. Shi
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
Q. Y. Shou
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
E. P. Sichtermann
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
R. Sikora
AGH University of Science and Technology, FPACS, Cracow 30-059, Poland
M. Simko
Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR, 250 68 Prague, Czech Republic
S. Singha
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
M. J. Skoby
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
N. Smirnov
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
D. Smirnov
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
W. Solyst
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
L. Song
University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204
P. Sorensen
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
H. M. Spinka
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439
B. Srivastava
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
T. D. S. Stanislaus
Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383
M. Strikhanov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
B. Stringfellow
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
T. Sugiura
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan,
M. Sumbera
Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR, 250 68 Prague, Czech Republic
B. Summa
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
Y. Sun
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
X. M. Sun
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
X. Sun
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
B. Surrow
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
D. N. Svirida
Alikhanov Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow 117218, Russia
M. A. Szelezniak
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
A. H. Tang
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
Z. Tang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
A. Taranenko
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
T. Tarnowsky
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
A. Tawfik
World Laboratory for Cosmology and Particle Physics (WLCAPP), Cairo 11571, Egypt
J. Thäder
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
J. H. Thomas
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
A. R. Timmins
University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204
D. Tlusty
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
T. Todoroki
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
M. Tokarev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
S. Trentalange
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
R. E. Tribble
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
P. Tribedy
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
S. K. Tripathy
Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar 751005, India
B. A. Trzeciak
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague, 115 19, Czech Republic
O. D. Tsai
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
T. Ullrich
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
D. G. Underwood
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439
I. Upsal
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
G. Van Buren
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
G. van Nieuwenhuizen
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
A. N. Vasiliev
Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
F. Videbæk
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
S. Vokal
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141 980, Russia
S. A. Voloshin
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
A. Vossen
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
G. Wang
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
Y. Wang
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
F. Wang
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
Y. Wang
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
J. C. Webb
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
G. Webb
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
L. Wen
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
G. D. Westfall
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
H. Wieman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
S. W. Wissink
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
R. Witt
United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 21402
Y. Wu
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
Z. G. Xiao
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
W. Xie
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
G. Xie
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
J. Xu
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
N. Xu
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
Q. H. Xu
Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250100
Y. F. Xu
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
Z. Xu
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
Y. Yang
National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101
Q. Yang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
C. Yang
Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250100
S. Yang
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
Z. Ye
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
Z. Ye
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
L. Yi
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
K. Yip
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
I. -K. Yoo
Pusan National University, Pusan 46241, Korea
N. Yu
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
H. Zbroszczyk
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
W. Zha
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
Z. Zhang
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
X. P. Zhang
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
J. B. Zhang
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
S. Zhang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
J. Zhang
Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000
Y. Zhang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
J. Zhang
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
S. Zhang
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
J. Zhao
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
C. Zhong
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
L. Zhou
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
C. Zhou
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
X. Zhu
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
Z. Zhu
Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250100
M. Zyzak
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies FIAS, Frankfurt 60438, Germany
Abstract
We report the first measurement of the elliptic anisotropy () of the charm meson at mid-rapidity ( 1) in Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV. The measurement was conducted by the STAR experiment at RHIC utilizing a new high-resolution silicon tracker. The measured in 0–80% centrality Au+Au collisions can be described by a viscous hydrodynamic calculation for transverse momentum () less than 4 GeV/. The as a function of transverse kinetic energy (, where ) is consistent with that of light mesons in 10–40% centrality Au+Au collisions. These results suggest that charm quarks have achieved local thermal equilibrium with the medium created in such collisions. Several theoretical models, with the temperature–dependent, dimensionless charm spatial diffusion coefficient () in the range of 2–12, are able to simultaneously reproduce our result and our previously published results for the nuclear modification factor.
pacs:
25.75.Cj, 25.75.Ld, 12.38.Mh
Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is a non-Abelian gauge theory which describes the strong interactions between quarks and gluons. Experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) indicate that a novel form of QCD matter, consistent with a strongly coupled Quark-Gluon Plasma (sQGP), is created in heavy-ion collisions at these energies Adams et al. (2005); Adcox et al. (2005); Muller et al. (2012). A key piece of evidence for this new state of matter is the strong collective, anisotropic flow of produced light flavor particles, suggesting possibly hydrodynamic behavior of the strongly interacting matter during the collision Gale et al. (2013).
Heavy quarks (charm and bottom) are predominantly created in the initial hard scatterings in a heavy-ion collision, and their propagation in the sQGP can be described as Brownian-like motion Moore and Teaney (2005); Rapp and van Hees (2008). The sQGP properties can be accessed through experimental observables such as the nuclear modification factor () Wang and Gyulassy (1992), the ratio of the yield in heavy-ion collisions to the scaled yield in proton+proton (+) collisions, and the elliptic anisotropy () Poskanzer and Voloshin (1998), the second Fourier coefficient of the particle yield with respect to the reaction plane (defined by the beam axis and the direction of the impact parameter between two colliding nuclei). Of these observables, the at low transverse momentum () where light and strange flavor hadrons appear to behave hydrodynamically, is of particular interest because it probes the properties of the bulk medium in the strongly-coupled region and is less affected by the shadowing and Cronin effects Andronic et al. (2016).
Recent measurements at RHIC and the LHC show that high- charm hadron yields are significantly suppressed in central heavy-ion collisions indicating strong charm–medium interactions Adamczyk et al. (2014a); Abelev et al. (2012); Adam et al. (2016). The -meson measured by ALICE Abelev et al. (2013); *AliceV22 is comparable to that of light hadrons at the LHC. So far, charm quark flow at RHIC has only been inferred from measurements of semileptonic decays of charm and bottom hadrons Adare et al. (2007); *PhenixNpe2; Adamczyk et al. (2014b). However, a clear interpretation of lepton measurements suffers from an ambiguity in the lepton sources between charm and bottom decays and the decay kinematics. On the other hand, there has been significant progress in theoretical calculations for charm hadron in heavy-ion collisions Berrehrah et al. (2014); *PHSD2; Ozvenchuk et al. (2014); *SUBATECH2; *SUBATECHPrivateCom; Alberico et al. (2011); *Torino2; Cao et al. (2015); *DukePrivateCom; He et al. (2012); *TAMU2; *TAMUPrivateCom; Cao et al. (2016); Uphoff et al. (2012); *BAMPS2; Sharma et al. (2009). A precise measurement of charm hadron over a wide momentum range is expected to provide valuable insights into the sQGP properties Andronic et al. (2016).
In this Letter, we report the first measurement of the anisotropy parameter at mid-rapidity ( 1) at RHIC by the STAR Collaboration using the newly completed Heavy Flavor Tracker (HFT) Beavis et al. (2011); Qiu (2014). The HFT is a high-resolution silicon detector system, which aims for the topological reconstruction of secondary decay vertices of open heavy flavor hadrons. It has three sub-detectors: the Silicon Strip Detector, the Intermediate Silicon Tracker (IST), and the Pixel (PXL) detector. In the 2014 Au+Au run at = 200 GeV, 1.1 billion minimum bias triggered events, selected by a coincidence signal between the east and west Vertex Position Detectors (VPD) Llope et al. (2004) located at 4.4 4.9 ( is the pseudo-rapidity), were recorded with the IST and the PXL. In this analysis, the reconstructed collision primary vertex (PV) is required to be less than 6 cm from the detector center along the beam axis to ensure good HFT acceptance. The collision centrality, the fraction of the total hadronic cross section, is defined using the measured charged track multiplicity at mid-rapidity and corrected for the online VPD triggering inefficiency using a Monte Carlo Glauber simulation Abelev et al. (2009).
and mesons are reconstructed in the decay channel, which has a short proper decay length ( 123 m) Olive et al. (2014). Charged tracks are reconstructed by the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) Anderson et al. (2003) together with the HFT in a 0.5 T uniform magnetic field. Tracks are required to have a minimum of 20 TPC hits (out of a maximum of 45), hits in all layers of PXL and IST sub-detectors, 0.6 GeV/, and 1. To identify particle species, the ionization energy loss, , measured by the TPC is required to be within three and two standard deviations from the expected values for and , respectively. The particle identification is extended by the Time Of Flight (TOF) Llope (2012) detector up to GeV/ by requiring the ( is particle velocity in unit of the speed of light), calculated from the path length and the TOF, to be less than three standard deviations different from the expected value calculated using the or mass and the measured momentum.
Figure 1 (a) shows the track pointing resolution to the collision vertex in the transverse plane () as a function of momentum () for identified particles in 0–80% centrality Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV. The resolution is better than 55 m for kaons with 0.75 GeV/. With two daughter tracks, a secondary decay vertex can be reconstructed as the middle point on the distance of the closest approach (DCA) between them. The primary background is due to fake pairs coming from random combinations of tracks which propagate directly from the collision point. The background can be significantly reduced by applying cuts on five variables: decay length (the distance between the decay vertex and the PV), DCA between the two daughters, DCA between the reconstructed track and the PV, DCA between the track and the PV, and the DCA between the track and the PV. The cuts on these variables are optimized using the Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis (TMVA) package Hocker et al. (2007). Their optimization was pursued separately in each candidate bin in order to have the greatest signal significance.
Figures 1 (b) and (c) show the invariant mass spectra of pairs after applying these cuts for two bins. Comparing these mass spectra with the previous study Adamczyk et al. (2014a), the signal significance is markedly improved due to the background rejection using the geometric cuts enabled by the HFT (220 vs. 13 per billion events). The combinatorial background is estimated with like-sign pairs and the mixed event unlike-sign technique in which and with opposite charge signs from different events are paired. The mixed event distributions are normalized to the like-sign distributions in the mass range of 1.7–2.1 GeV/. The remaining contributions to the background is expected to come from the correlated sources, e.g. pairs from jet fragments or multi-prong decays of heavy flavor mesons.
Two different methods are employed to calculate : the event plane method Poskanzer and Voloshin (1998) and the correlation method Borghini et al. (2001); Bilandzic et al. (2011). In the event plane method, a second order event plane angle is reconstructed from TPC tracks excluding decay products of mesons and after correcting for the azimuthal nonuniformity in the detector efficiency Poskanzer and Voloshin (1998). To suppress non-flow effects (correlations not connected to the event plane, such as resonance decays and jet correlations), only particles from the opposite hemisphere of the reconstructed and outside of an additional -gap of 0.05 are used in the event plane reconstruction. The yields are measured in azimuthal bins relative to the event plane azimuth (). The yields are weighted by , where is the reconstruction efficiencyacceptance and the event plane angle resolution Poskanzer and Voloshin (1998) for each centrality interval Masui et al. (2016). In each bin, the mixed event background, scaled to the like-sign background, is subtracted from the unlike-sign distribution. The yield is obtained via the side band method by subtracting the scaled counts in two invariant mass ranges around the signal (1.711.80 and 1.932.02 GeV/) from the counts in the signal region (1.821.91 GeV/) Adamczyk et al. (2012). A fit method using a Gaussian function for signal plus a first order polynomial function for the background is also used to estimate the systematic uncertainty on the raw yield extraction. Figure 2 (a) shows an example of the weighted yield as a function of . The observed is then obtained by fitting with a functional form , where is a normalization parameter. Finally, the true is obtained by scaling the observed with to correct for the event plane angle resolution Masui et al. (2016).
In the correlation method Borghini et al. (2001); Bilandzic et al. (2011), is calculated for candidates and the background, separately. For example, the candidate-hadron azimuthal cumulant , shown as a function of as solid markers in Fig. 2 (b), is calculated by the -cumulant method where and are azimuthal angles for candidates and charged hadrons, respectively Bilandzic et al. (2011). The average is taken over all events and all particles. Neglecting non-flow contributions, the following factorization can be assumed to obtain the : . Here, can be obtained from hadron-hadron correlations via . The same -gap as in the event plane method was chosen for the correlation analysis. The background is calculated similarly, with the background represented by the average of the like-sign pairs in the mass window (, where is the signal width) and side bands (49 away from the peak, both like-sign and unlike-sign pairs). The background-hadron cumulant is also shown in Fig. 2 (b) as open circles. The is obtained from the candidate and background and their respective yields (, ) by .
The systematic uncertainty is estimated by comparing obtained from the following different methods: a) the fit vs. side-band methods, b) varying invariant mass ranges for the fit and for the side bands, c) varying geometric cuts so that the efficiency changes by 50% with respect to the nominal value. These three different sources are varied independently to form multiple combinations. We then take the maximum difference from these combinations and divide by as one standard deviation of the systematic uncertainty. The feed-down contribution from -meson decays to our measured yield is estimated to be less than 4%. Compared to other systematic uncertainties, this contribution is negligible even in the extreme case that -meson is 0.
Figure 2 (c) shows the result of the in 0–80% centrality Au+Au events as a function of . The results from the event plane and correlation methods are consistent with each other within uncertainties. For further discussion in this letter, we use from the event plane method only, which has been widely used in previous STAR identified particle measurements Abelev et al. (2008); Adamczyk et al. (2016).
The residual non-flow contribution is estimated by scaling the -hadron correlation (with the same gap used in the analysis) in + collisions, where only the non-flow effects are present, by the average () and multiplicity () of charged hadrons used for event plane reconstruction or -hadron correlations in Au+Au collisions. Thus the non-flow contribution is estimated to be \big{\langle}\displaystyle\sum\nolimits_{i}\cos 2(\phi_{D^{0}}-\phi_{i})\big{\rangle}/M\overline{v_{2}} Adams et al. (2004), where and are the azimuthal angles for the and hadron, respectively. The is done for charged tracks in the same event, and is an average over all events. The -hadron correlation in + collisions is deduced from -hadron correlations measured with data taken by STAR in year 2012 for 3 GeV/ and from a PYTHIA simulation for 3 GeV/. The correlations in + collisions were used as a conservative estimate since the correlation may be suppressed in Au+Au collisions due to the hot medium effect. The estimated non-flow contribution is shown separately (grey bands) along with the systematic and statistical uncertainties in Figs. 3 and 4.
For cross check we performed a MC simulation using the measured to calculate the single electron and compare to previous RHIC measurements Adare et al. (2007, 2011); Adamczyk et al. (2014b). Both the PHENIX and STAR measurements are compatible with the calculated electron at 3 GeV/ where the charm hadron contribution dominates Cacciari et al. (2005); Aggarwal et al. (2010); Adare et al. (2016). At higher region, where the bottom contribution is sizable, the large uncertainty in the measurement of of single electrons does not allow for a reasonable extraction of for -mesons.
Figure 3 compares the measured from the event plane method in 10–40 centrality bin with of , , and Abelev et al. (2008). The comparison between and light hadrons needs to be done in a narrow centrality bin to avoid the bias caused by the fact that the yield scales with number of binary collisions while the yield of light hadrons scales approximately with number of the participants Esha et al. (2016). Panel (a) shows as a function of where a clear mass ordering for 2 GeV/ including mesons is observed. For 2 GeV/, the meson follows that of other light mesons indicating significant charm quark flow at RHIC Molnar and Voloshin (2003); Abelev et al. (2008); Adamczyk et al. (2016). Recent ALICE measurements show that the is comparable to that of charged hadrons in 0-50% Pb+Pb collisions at = 2.76 TeV Abelev et al. (2013, 2014) suggesting sizable charm flow at the LHC. Panel (b) shows as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy, , where is the number of constituent quarks in the hadron, its mass, and . We find that the falls into the same universal trend as all other light hadrons Afanasiev et al. (2007), in particular for 1 GeV/. This suggests that charm quarks have gained significant flow through interactions with the sQGP medium in 10–40% Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV.
The heavy quark-medium interaction is often characterized by a spatial diffusion coefficient , or a dimensionless coefficient , where is the medium temperature Moore and Teaney (2005). In Fig. 4, the measured in 0–80% centrality collisions is compared with several model calculations Berrehrah et al. (2014); *PHSD2; Ozvenchuk et al. (2014); *SUBATECH2; *SUBATECHPrivateCom; Alberico et al. (2011); *Torino2; Pang et al. (2015); *hydroPang2; *hydroPrivateCom; He et al. (2012); *TAMU2; *TAMUPrivateCom; Cao et al. (2015); *DukePrivateCom; Cao et al. (2016). Duke, LBT, PHSD, SUBATECH models and TAMU model with charm quark diffusion are able to describe our previously published result Adamczyk et al. (2014a); Berrehrah et al. (2014); *PHSD2; Cao et al. (2016). Compared to the measurement, TAMU model with no charm quark diffusion does not reproduce the data, while the same model with charm quark diffusion turned on describes the data better He et al. (2012); *TAMU2; *TAMUPrivateCom. A 3D viscous event-by-event hydrodynamic simulation with 0.12 using the AMPT initial condition and tuned to describe for light hadrons, predicts that is consistent with our data for 4 GeV/ Pang et al. (2015); *hydroPrivateCom. This suggests that charm quarks have achieved thermal equilibrium in these collisions. We performed a statistical significance test for the consistency between our data and each model quantified by and the -value listed in Table 1. One can observe that the Duke model and TAMU model with no charm quark diffusion are inconsistent with our data, while other models describe the data in the measured region. These models that can describe both the and data include the temperature–dependent charm diffusion coefficient in the range of 2–12. predicted by lattice QCD calculations fall in the same range Banerjee et al. (2012); Ding et al. (2015). In addition to the different treatments of the charm–medium interactions, there are also various differences among these models, e.g. the initial state, the space-time description of the QGP evolution, the hadronization, and the interactions in the hadronic matter. More coherent model treatments of these aspects are needed in order to better interpret the information about charm-medium interaction, and provide a better constraint on 2 using our measurement.
In summary, the in Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV has been measured with the STAR detector using the Heavy Flavor Tracker, a newly installed high–resolution silicon detector. The measured follows the mass ordering at low observed earlier. The of is consistent with that of other hadrons at 1 GeV/ in 10–40% centrality collisions. A 3D viscous hydrodynamic model describes the for 4 GeV/. Our results suggest that charm quarks exhibit the same strong collective behavior as the light hadrons and may be close to thermal equilibrium in Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV. Several theoretical calculations with temperature–dependent, dimensionless charm quark spatial diffusion coefficients () in the range of 2–12 can simultaneously reproduce our result as well as the previously published STAR measurement of the nuclear modification factor. The charm quark diffusion coefficients from lattice QCD calculations are consistent with the same range Banerjee et al. (2012); Ding et al. (2015).
Acknowledgements.
We thank the RHIC Operations Group and RCF at BNL, the NERSC Center at LBNL, and the Open Science Grid consortium for providing resources and support. This work was supported in part by the Office of Nuclear Physics within the U.S. DOE Office of Science, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Academy of Science, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and the Chinese Ministry of Education, the National Research Foundation of Korea, GA and MSMT of the Czech Republic, Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Science and Technology of the Government of India; the National Science Centre of Poland, National Research Foundation, the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia, RosAtom of Russia and German Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung and Technologie (BMBF) and the Helmholtz Association.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Adams et al. (2005) J. Adams et al. (STAR), Nucl. Phys. A 757 , 102 (2005) . · doi ↗
- 2Adcox et al. (2005) K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Nucl. Phys. A 757 , 184 (2005) . · doi ↗
- 3Muller et al. (2012) B. Muller, J. Schukraft, and B. Wyslouch, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62 , 361 (2012) . · doi ↗
- 4Gale et al. (2013) C. Gale, S. Jeon, B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 , 012302 (2013) . · doi ↗
- 5Moore and Teaney (2005) G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 71 , 064904 (2005) . · doi ↗
- 6Rapp and van Hees (2008) R. Rapp and H. van Hees, (2008), ar Xiv:0803.0901 [hep-ph] .
- 7Wang and Gyulassy (1992) X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 , 1480 (1992) . · doi ↗
- 8Poskanzer and Voloshin (1998) A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 58 , 1671 (1998) . · doi ↗
