R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook The PHENIX Flow Data: Current Status Justin Frantz (for T.Todoroki) Ohio University WWND 15 Keystone, CO 1 (Filling in For Takahito Todoroki, his suggestions + A. Taranenko’s slides)

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook PHENIX v n Measurements at RHIC 1)Introduction / Methods 2)NOT : Azimuthal anisotropy in small systems: NOT d+Au and 3 He+Au at 200GeV : Paul Stankus Talk Later This Morning 3)System size dependence of anisotropy? 4)Energy Scan Results 5)PID V n results confronting theory 2 22 33 44

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Motivation: “Solving” Hydro To get from here to here we need: 3 Lots O’ Data Shape = ?

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook PHENIX Methods: Event Plane v n’ s 4 Correlate hadrons in central Arms with EVENT PLANE (RXN, etc) (I) (II)  ∆φ correlation function for EP N - EP S  ∆φ correlation function for EP - CA Central Arms (CA) |η’| < 0.35 (particle detection) ψ n RXN (|  |=1.0~2.8) MPC (|  |=3.1~3.7) BBC (|  |=3.1~3.9) From 2012: - FVTX (1.5<|  |<3)

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 5 ψ n RXN (|  |=1.0~2.8) MPC (|  |=3.1~3.7) BBC (|  |=3.1~3.9) Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, (2010) V n (EP): Phys.Rev.Lett. 107 (2011)  Good agreement between V n results obtained by event plane (EP) and two-particle correlation method (2PC)  No evidence for significant η-dependent non-flow contributions from di-jets for pT= GeV/c.  Systematic uncertainty : event plane: 2-5% for v2 and 5-12% for v3. arXiv: , arXiv: arXiv: arXiv: PHENIX Methods: History/Non-Flow

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Using RHIC’s Flexibility 6 harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Species Au+Au Cu+CuCu+Au v1v1 v4v4 Open up new axes

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Recent PHENIX publications on flow at RHIC: 1) 2) Recent PHENIX publications on flow at RHIC: 1) Systematic Study of Azimuthal Anisotropy in Cu+Cu and Au+Au Collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV: arXiv: ) Measurement of the higher-order anisotropic flow coefficients for identified hadrons in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV : arXiv:

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook v4v4 PHENIX Data: Preview 8 Species We are filling up this three dimensional space in PHENIX with more and more precision harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Au+Au Cu+CuCu+Au

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Different (LARGE) Heavy Collisions Systems 9 Species harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Au+Au Cu+CuCu+Au v1v1 v4v4 First focus on symmetric systems

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 10 Flow in symmetric colliding systems : Cu+Cu vs Au+Au 10 Phys.Rev.Lett. 107 (2011) Strong centrality dependence of v 2 in AuAu, CuCu Weak centrality dependence of v 3 Simultaneous measurements of v2 and v3  Crucial constraint for η/s Updates for HYDRO constraints from Cu+Cu?

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook v 3 Au+Au vs. Cu+Cu Within largish errors over larger p T the same But some constraining power at low pt (0-1 GeV/c) 11

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Should Cu+Au be on this axis? 12 Species harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Au+Au Cu+CuCu+Au v1v1 One of the motivations for Cu+Au was “exotic” configurations? Fair to put it on this axis?

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 13 Centrality/Pt dependence of v 2, v 3 in 200 GeV Cu+Au 13 - Centrality dependence of v 2 v 3 similar to Au+Au… - What? No Significant centrality dependence of v 3 !  Same centrality dependence as seen in symmetric collisions: Au+Au and Cu+Cu

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 14 v 3 in 200 GeV Cu+Au vs Cu+Cu/Au+Au The observed system size independence of v 3 Is expected from the similar values of ɛ 3 Phys.Rev. C84 (2011)

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Should Cu+Au be on this axis? 15 Species harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Au+Au Cu+CuCu+Au v1v1 Answer: Yes : I.S. fluctuations are more important/dominant than overlap shapes! (at least for v 3 )

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 16 v2, in 200 GeV Cu+Au vs Cu+Cu/Au+Au 16 Phys.Rev. C84 (2011) The observed system size dependence of v2: AuAu>Cu+Au>CuCu originate from the differences in initial ɛ 2 Overlap region of course does affect v 2

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Note: Caveat v 1 ? 17 Species harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Au+Au Cu+CuCu+Au v1v1 Evidence of exotic overlaps making a difference?: v1 possibly

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Note: Understanding v 1 18

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Energy Scan 19 Species We have energy scan data for Au+Au both v 2, v 3, v 4 harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Au+Au Cu+CuCu+Au v1v1 For Cu+Cu we have it just for v 2 v4v4

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Incl. Hadron v 2 Au+Au, GeV 20 No significant change in v 2 (p T ) for √s = GeV ! Precision Data

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook v2 in CuCu/AuAu collisions at GeV 21 Eccentricity scaling is broken. Just the transverse size R in the ecc model or could there be implications for viscosity? HYDRO? 5 σ x & σ y  RMS widths of density distribution defined in Glauber MC

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook E.g. Data-based 1/R Scaling Model Interpretation 22 PRL112, (2014) Lacey et.al. 1/R Scaling Model: viscosity is the difference? Interesting to see what REAL HYDRO MODEL will say!

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Good Old Au+Au 23 Species harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Au+Au Cu+CuCu+Au v1v1 Step Back Any new information here? ADD PID (another dimension) v4v4

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 24 v 2, v 3, v 4 of Identified charged hadrons Au+Au at 200 GeV arXiv:

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Scaling Properties of Vn Flow at 200 GeV 25 arXiv:  NCQ-scaling holds well for v 2,v 3,v 4 below 1GeV in KE T space, at 200GeV v n is related to v 2

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Model Constraints from All Moments 26 We all know what a big constraint the vn has been

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Break the Glb/KLN ambiguity? Can we resolve this with PID? 27 Private Communication: Shen, C. et. al. arXiv:

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Model Comparisons v2/v3 ratio MCKLN works better for peripheral Glauber better for most central –We need a new model / New physics effect? 28 Private Communication: Shen, C. et. al. arXiv:

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Some More Space Filled in with Cu+Cu 29 Species harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Au+Au Cu+Cu Cu+Au v1v1 We also have newly finalized PID’d Cu+Cu v 2 ! Au+Au

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 30 v 2 of Identified charged hadrons Au+Au/Cu+Cu at 200 GeV arXiv: Which hydro parameters/inputs would be needed match the Cu+Cu data as well?

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Summary PHENIX is filling in the 3-D (5-D!) space! Already confronting Theory adding more constraints to our field’s hoped-for “Solving” of Hydro 31 Anxious to see more of this and other RHIC data included!

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 32 Backup Slides

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook more on v1 thing 33

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 34 centrality (%) n=2 RXN n=3 RXN n=4 RXN n=2 MPC n=3 MPC  n = 200GeV Au+Au PHENIX Preliminary PHENIX Flow Measurements : Event Plane Resolution ψ n RXN (|  |=1.0~2.8) MPC (|  |=3.1~3.7) BBC (|  |=3.1~3.9) Overall good event plane resolution for V n measurements and study beam energy dependence of the flow.

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook 35 Differential v 2 (p T ): Comparison with STAR Multi-particle methods Ratio V 2 {STAR} / V 2 {PHENIX EP} < 1.0 for 4p cumulant and LYZ method. LYZ : Lee-Yang-Zeros Method Lee-Yang-Zeros Method 4p cumulant method

R. Lacey, SUNY Stony Brook Some More Space Filled in with Cu+Cu 36 Species harmonic n v2v2 v3v3 200 GeV 62 GeV 39 GeV Au+Au Cu+CuCu+Au v1v1 Au+Au v4v4