ISMD 2007 Berkeley, August Chairman: Nu Xu

Seria ISMD Początek: Paryż 1970 (Lestienne,Salmeron, Sosnowski, Krzywicki + Wróblewski itd.), Helsinki 71, Zakopane 72 (Kraków- Warszawa), Pawia 73..., Tihany 2000, Datong 01, Alushta 02, Kraków 2003, Sonoma 04, Kromeriz 05, Parati 06 Nazwy zmienne, ale zawsze multiparticle (w latach 70 mały margines fizyki cząstek)

Program 1.Jet physics (Salgado, Takai) 7 referatów 2.Fluctuations and Correlations (Padula, Strickland, Soltz, Roland) 13 3.Small x and Diffraction (Kovchegov, Staśto) 10 4.Soft Interactions (Cebra, Soldner-Rembold) 10 5.Astroparticle Physics (Drescher, Huentemeyer) 6 6.Particle Propagating in Dense Matter (Casalderrey- Solana, Dremin, Jia, Fuqian Wang) 15 7.Heavy Quark Production (Bauer, Gary, Huang) 11

Statystyka Uczestnicy: 85, afiliacje: 44 USA, 11 RFN, 4 Brazylia, Rosja, 3 Polska, Włochy, 2 Czechy, Francja, Węgry, 1 Chiny, Holandia, Indie, Izrael, Japonia, Kanada, Słowacja, Szwajcaria, Szwecja, Ukraina. Uwaga: afiliacje, nie narodowości! Referaty: 73:

Polscy uczestnicy i referaty D.Antończyk (Frankfurt), Z.Chajecki (Ohio), P.Danielewicz (Michigan), KF (UJ), A.Galas (IFJ), A.Kisiel (Ohio), R.Maj (AŚ), A.Staśto (Penn), M.Szuba (LBL)+B.Jacak,? P.Danielewicz-imaging review (MSU) A.Kisiel-STAR and Therminator (OSU) A.Galas-production in DIS, p from ep KF-HERMES and absorption

Co naprawdę nowego? Astrocząstki: ograniczenie GZK działa, korelacje - źródła? Asymetria eliptyczna: przyczynek korelacji Korelacje cząstkowe Odkrycie b, b, b

Ograniczenie GZK, klastry Kai Martens (HiRes, U. of Utah) Glennys Farrar (New York U.)

Results from HiRes and Observation of the GZK Suppression Kai Martens High Energy Astrophysics Institute Department of Physics, University of Utah for the HiRes Collaboration HR1 HR2

HiRes Monocular Spectra flux x E 3 HR1: longer exposure high energy HR2: larger elevation coverage low energy energy scale uncertainties: - missing energy 5% - energy loss rate10% - fluorescence yield 6% - atmospheric conditions 4% - photometric calibration10% total (energy):17% flux uncertainty:30% =2.8) data: HR1: 5/97-6/05 HR2: 12/99-8/04

Old plots: AGASA AGASA (E–20%) avoid double counting: remove HR1 events that also are in the HR2 data set Broken power-law fits: a.) one vs. two breakpoints: 2 reduced by b.) compare measured data to red line extrapolation: expect: 39.9 observe: (P=7x10 -7 ) Quacks like duck, dont it?

HiRes Composition Guided Fits flux source model: all sources inject with E = 2.42 uniform with redshift evolution (1+z) m m = 2.46 future: astronomy inspired redshift evolution composition as measured !

Rescaling energies to dip => consistency! Left: published spectra x E 3 from different expts Right: spectra after shifting energies by factors AG = 0.9; HR = 1.2; Yk = 0.75; Auger = 1.2 Shift => consistent normalizations of all spectra, for Auger = 1.4. ( HR = difference in AF yield assumptions => Auger ~ 1.35)

UHECR multiplets Cluster candidate in published AGASA-HiRes data: –5 events, chance probability –Energies (15), 38, 53, 55, 78 EeV (1 EeV = eV) –(b, l) = (55 o,145 o ) (Ursa Major Cluster) Projecting from AGASA-HiRes suggests with a dataset like Auger ~1 multiplet with 8-10 UHECRs 1 multiplet with ~ 6 UHECRs ~5 multiplets with ~ 4 UHECRs Need good analysis tools to avoid using false multiplets. Maximum Likelihood method has been developed (GRF) If (when!) such multiplets are found, they will give a powerful constraint on GMF and sources.

Wnioski z astrofizyki Ograniczenie GZK (strata energii w produkcji na fotonach tła) jednak chyba działa, więc dziesiątki modeli zbędne. Być może są klastry kierunkowe dla najwyższej energii (niezaburzone przez pole magnetyczne); Auger?

Published by AAAS The Pierre Auger Collaboration et al., Science 318, (2007) Fig. 1. Layout of the Pierre Auger Southern Observatory

Published by AAAS The Pierre Auger Collaboration et al., Science 318, (2007) Fig. 2. Aitoff projection of the celestial sphere in galactic coordinates with circles of radius 3.1{degrees} centered at the arrival directions of the 27 cosmic rays with highest energy detected by the Pierre Auger Observatory

Azimuthal asymmetry – czy to naprawdę elliptic flow? Rudy Hwa (Oregon U.) Gunther Roland (STAR, MIT)

Conclusion Azimuthal anisotropy is mainly a ridge effect. No fast thermalization or hydrodynamical flow are needed. Hydrodynamics may still be applicable after some time, but it is not needed for v 2, for which the relevant physics at <1 fm/c is crucial --- semi-hard scattering at q T <3. For p T <1.5 GeV/c, the analysis is simple, and the result can be expressed in analytic form that agrees with data. For p T >1.5 GeV/c, shower partons must be considered. Jet dominance (>3GeV/c) will saturate v 2. No part of the study suggests that the medium behaves like a perfect fluid.

STAR analysis Znane efekty korelacyjne (clusters, minijets...) dają przyczynki do asymetrii azymutalnej niezwiązane z przepływem Należy je odjąć przed porównaniem danych z modelami hydrodynamicznymi STAR, PHOBOS (Krzysztof Woźniak)

Nowe dane o korelacjach Stefan Kniege (Frankfurt U., CERES) Jason Ulery (Purdue U., STAR): 3-particle correlations to discriminate between the models of back jet emission

Summary Non gaussian shape on the away side of 2 particle correlation function Shape of the correlation function for different charge combinations indicate charge ordering in the fragmentation process Shape of the 3 particle correlations indicate cone like structure on the away side of the jet Further investigations are needed to draw final conclusions

Summary and Conclusions Three 3-particle analyses at RHIC. PHENIX Analysis –Shape consistent with conical emission simulation. STAR Cumulant Analysis –Non-zero 3-particle correlations. STAR 2-Component Analysis –Consistent with conical emission at about 1.45 radians in central Au+Au. – P T independent angle suggests Mach-cone emission.

Odkrycie nowych pięknych barionów W tablicach z 2006 roku tylko b Teraz identyfikowane: b, b *, b, b Tania Moulik (U. of Kansas, CDF+D0): przewidywania i wyniki doświadczalne

b Results Likelihood Fit Results : M (DØ) = (stat.) 15 (syst.) MeV -- [1] M (CDF)= (stat.) 1.7 (syst.) GeV ) – [2] ( Theory : ) Likelihood Fit Results : M (DØ) = (stat.) 15 (syst.) MeV -- [1] M (CDF)= (stat.) 1.7 (syst.) GeV ) – [2] ( Theory : ) [1] PRL 99, (2007) [2] arXiv:

Podsumowanie nowych barionów Masy i rozpady +/- jak oczekiwano. Dlaczego model kwarków działa tu tak dobrze?

Zalecenia i perspektywy Warto oglądnąć strony dostępne pod Program na stronie ISMD rnc.lbl.gov/ISMD/index.htmlhttp://www- rnc.lbl.gov/ISMD/index.html Następne ISMD w Hamburgu (DESY) w dniach (Hannes Jung + Gösta Gustafson), a przedtem WPCF (Workshop on Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy) w Krakowie (Andrzej Białas + KF, G.Miśkowiec etc. w OC, J.Pluta, K.Zalewski wśród conveners...)