4.8 Article

Bayesian estimation of the specific shear and bulk viscosity of quark-gluon plasma

Journal

NATURE PHYSICS
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages 1113-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41567-019-0611-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US Department of Energy [DE-FG02-05ER41367]
  2. NSF [NSF-ACI-1550225]
  3. DOE/NNSA Stockpile Stewardship Graduate Fellowship [DE-FC52-08NA28752]
  4. National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a US Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ultrarelativistic collisions of heavy atomic nuclei produce an extremely hot and dense phase of matter, known as quarkgluon plasma (QGP), which behaves like a near-perfect fluid with the smallest specific shear viscosity-the ratio of the shear viscosity to the entropy density-of any known substance(1). Due to its transience (lifetime similar to 10(-23) s) and microscopic size (10-14 m), the QGP cannot be observed directly, but only through the particles it emits; however, its characteristics can be inferred by matching the output of computational collision models to experimental observations. Previous work, using viscous relativistic hydrodynamics to simulate QGP, has achieved semiquantitative constraints on key physical properties, such as its specific shear and bulk viscosity, but with large, poorly defined uncertainties(2-8). Here, we present the most precise estimates so far of QGP properties, including their quantitative uncertainties. By applying established Bayesian parameter estimation methods(9) to a dynamical collision model and a wide variety of experimental data, we extract estimates of the temperature-dependent specific shear and bulk viscosity simultaneously with related initial-condition properties. The method is extensible to other collision models and experimental data and may be used to characterize additional aspects of high-energy nuclear collisions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available