4.2 Article

Long range two-particle rapidity correlations in A plus A collisions from high energy QCD evolution

期刊

NUCLEAR PHYSICS A
卷 836, 期 1-2, 页码 159-182

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.12.044

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-98CH10886]
  2. Academy of Finland [126604]
  3. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-06-BLAN-0285-01]
  4. Academy of Finland (AKA) [126604, 126604] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long range rapidity correlations in A + A collisions are sensitive to strong color field dynamics at early times after the collision. These can be computed in a factorization formalism (Gelis, Lappi and Venugopalan (2009) [I]) which expresses the n-gluon inclusive spectrum at arbitrary rapidity separations in terms of the multi-parton correlations in the nuclear wavefunctions. This formalism includes all radiative and rescattering contributions, to leading accuracy in alpha(s)Delta Y, where Delta Y is the rapidity separation between either one of the measured gluons and a projectile, or between the measured gluons themselves. In this paper, we use a mean field approximation for the evolution of the nuclear wavefunctions to obtain a compact result for inclusive two gluon correlations in terms of the unintegrated gluon distributions in the nuclear projectiles. The unintegrated gluon distributions satisfy the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation, which we solve with running coupling and with initial conditions constrained by existing data on electron-nucleus collisions. Our results are valid for arbitrary rapidity separations between measured gluons having transverse momenta p(perpendicular to) . q(perpendicular to) greater than or similar to Q(s) where Q(s) is the saturation scale in the nuclear wavefunctions. We compare our results to data on long range rapidity correlations observed in the near-side ridge at RHIC and make predictions for similar long range rapidity correlations at the LHC. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据