The role of plasma instabilities in thermalization fileThe role of plasma instabilities in...
-
Upload
duongthuan -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of The role of plasma instabilities in thermalization fileThe role of plasma instabilities in...
The role of plasma instabilities in thermalization
Aleksi Kurkelawith Guy Moore
Arxiv:
1107.5050thermalization in generic setup,
complete treatment of plasma instabilities
1108.4684 specialized to heavy ion collisions
869 order of magnitude estimates in total
Motivation
In: Out:
Pb+Pb @ few TeV per nucleonAnisotropic yield of ∼ 104
hadrons (”v2”)
Z
⇒Z
Motivation
Model:Hydro flow of nearly thermal fluid:
Collective flow turns spatial anisotropy to momentum anisotropyZ
Motivation
Model:Hydro flow of nearly thermal fluid:
Collective flow turns spatial anisotropy to momentum anisotropyZ
Assumes: Local thermal equilibrium T r .f .µν ≈ diag(e,p,p,p)
Inputs:
Equation of state, viscosities. . .Initial geometryThermalization time τ0 ∼ 0.4 . . . 1.2fm/c
MotivationObjective:
Why is τ0 . 0.4 . . . 1.2fm/c ???What happens before? Maybe observable in experiment
Method:
Extremely big: Nnucl → ∞Extremely high energy:
√s → ∞
weak coupling: αs ≪ 1⇒ Separation of scales: Kinetic theory, Hard loops, Vlasov equations,. . .Might be still non-perturbative (αf ≷ 1)
Purely parametric: counting powers of αs
Warning: all scales logarthmic
MotivationObjective:
Why is τ0 . 0.4 . . . 1.2fm/c ???What happens before? Maybe observable in experiment
Method:
Extremely big: Nnucl → ∞Extremely high energy:
√s → ∞
weak coupling: αs ≪ 1⇒ Separation of scales: Kinetic theory, Hard loops, Vlasov equations,. . .Might be still non-perturbative (αf ≷ 1)
Purely parametric: counting powers of αs
Objective of this talk: What are the relevant physical process that lead tothermalization in a HIC?
Warning: all scales logarthmic
Initial condition: t ∼ Q−1s
At weak coupling, well understood: Color Glass Condensate
Characteristic, saturation scale: Qs
High occupancy: f (p < Qs) ∼ 1/α (need something to cancel α in σlarge angle!)
Initial condition: t ∼ Q−1s
At weak coupling, well understood: Color Glass Condensate
Characteristic, saturation scale: Qs
High occupancy: f (p < Qs) ∼ 1/α (need something to cancel α in σlarge angle!)
Anisotropic: pz ≡ δpt ≪ pt
Initial energy density: ε(t ∼ Q−1s ) ∼ α−1Q4
s
Initial condition: t ∼ Q−1s
At weak coupling, well understood: Color Glass Condensate
Characteristic, saturation scale: Qs
High occupancy: f (p < Qs) ∼ 1/α (need something to cancel α in σlarge angle!)
Anisotropic: pz ≡ δpt ≪ pt
Initial energy density: ε(t ∼ Q−1s ) ∼ α−1Q4
s
Distribution of gluons: f (p) ∼ α−cθ(Qs − p)θ( αd︸︷︷︸
δ
Qs − pz)
Initial condition: t ∼ Q−1s
At weak coupling, well understood: Color Glass Condensate
Characteristic, saturation scale: Qs
High occupancy: f (p < Qs) ∼ 1/α (need something to cancel α in σlarge angle!)
Anisotropic: pz ≡ δpt ≪ pt
Initial energy density: ε(t ∼ Q−1s ) ∼ α−1Q4
s
Distribution of gluons: f (p) ∼ α−cθ(Qs − p)θ( αd︸︷︷︸
δ
Qs − pz)
t
Q
δQ
f(p)
z
p
p
-1 1
0
1
Initial condition
d=ln(δ)/ln(α)
c=-ln(f)/ln(α)f~α−1
High occupancyLow occupancy
High anisotropy
Low anisotropy
f~1f~α
Out of equilibrium systems: descriptors
-1 0 1
-1
0
1 d
c
f~α−1
High anisotropy:
f (p) ∼ α−cθ(Qs−p)θ(αdQs−pz)
Small anisotropy:
f (p) ∼ α−c(1 + α−dF (p))
Longitudinal expansionSpatial expansion translates into redshift in pz ∼ δQs
Changes only pz , Qs stays constant
Changes δ = αd
If pz ≪ pt , ε(t) ∼ α−1Q4s /(Qs t)
t
Q
δQ
f(p)
z
p
p ⇒
t
Q
δQ
zp
p
,
Longitudinal expansion
Spatial expansion translates into redshift in pz ∼ δQs
Changes only pz , Qs stays constant
Changes δ = αd
If pz ≪ pt , ε(t) ∼ α−1Q4s /(Qs t)
-1 0 1
0
1
Initial condition
d
cf~α−1
t~α−1t~α−5/2 t~α−3/2
Longitudinal expansion
Spatial expansion translates into redshift in pz ∼ δQs
Changes only pz , Qs stays constant
Changes δ = αd
If pz ≪ pt , ε(t) ∼ α−1Q4s /(Qs t)
-1 0 1
0
1
Initial condition
d
cf~α−1
t~α−1t~α−5/2 t~α−3/2
Free streaming
Scattering: Elastic
Elastic scattering makes the distribution fluffier
Q
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
f(p)
zpz
p
p
t
-1 0 1
0
1
Initial condition
d
cf~α−1
t~α−1t~α−5/2 t~α−3/2
Free streamingelastic
Along the attractive solution scattering and expansion compete
When typical occupancies f ≪ 1: loss of Bose enhancement
At late times: Fixed anisotropy, dilute away
Scattering: ElasticElastic scattering makes the distribution fluffier
Q
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
f(p)
zpz
p
p
t
-1 0 1
0
1
Initial condition
d
cf~α−1
t~α−1t~α−5/2 t~α−3/2
Free streamingelastic
Along the attractive solution scattering and expansion compete
When typical occupancies f ≪ 1: loss of Bose enhancement
At late times: Fixed anisotropy, dilute away
Elastic scattering not enough for thermalization!
Scattering: ElasticElastic scattering makes the distribution fluffier
Q
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
f(p)
zpz
p
p
t
-1 0 1
0
1
Initial condition
d
cf~α−1
t~α−1t~α−5/2 t~α−3/2
Free streamingelastic
Something completelydifferent
Along the attractive solution scattering and expansion compete
When typical occupancies f ≪ 1: loss of Bose enhancement
At late times: Fixed anisotropy, dilute away
Elastic scattering not enough for thermalization!
Scattering: Inelastic
Inelastic scattering plays two significant roles (Baier, Mueller, Schiff & Son 2000)
1 soft splitting: creation of a soft thermal bath
2 hard splitting: breaking of the hard particles
Scattering: Inelastic Baier, Mueller, Schiff & Son 2000
Soft splitting: Creation of soft thermal bath
Q
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
zp
Tz
p
p
t
Soft modes quick to emitns ∼ αncol
Low p: easy to bend⇒thermalize quickly
Can dominate dynamics!
(i.e. scattering, screening, . . . )
Scattering: Inelastic Baier, Mueller, Schiff & Son 2000
Hard splitting: Qs modes break before they bend!
Q
t (Q)split
t (Q/2)split
t (Q/4)
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
TQ/4Q/2
split
In vacuum: on-shell particles, no splittingIn medium: Particles receive small kicks frequently
For stochastic uncorrelated kicks: Brownian motion in p-space
∆p2⊥∼ qt, tsplit(k) ∼ α
√
q/k︸ ︷︷ ︸
tform
(LPM)
Momentum diffusion coefficient q describes how the medium wiggles ahard parton
Bottom-Up Baier, Mueller, Schiff & Son 2000
Thermal bath eats the hard particles away:
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
zp
Tzp
k
p
split
t
QScales below ksplit havecascaded down to T -bath
tsplit(ksplit) ∼ t ⇒ ksplit ∼ α2qt2
”Falling” particles heat up thethermal bath
T 4 ∼ ksplit
∫
d3pf (p)
Thermalization when Qs getseaten
ksplit ∼ Qs
Needs q as an input
Old bottom up: Baier, Mueller, Schiff & Son 2000
q dominated by elastic scattering with thermal bath??
BMSS assumed: q ∼ qelastic ∼ α2T 3
Solve self-consistently:
ksplit ∼ α2qt2
T 4 ∼ ksplit(Q3s /(Qs t))
q ∼ α2T 3
for:
⇒
T ∼ α3Qs(Qs t)ksplit ∼ α13(Qst)
5Q
τ0 ∼ α−13/5Q−1s
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
zp
Tzp
k
p
split
t
Q
But: Is this all there is?
q dominated (always!) by
plasma instabilities
Plasma instabilities: Idea
Exponential growth of (chromo)-magnetic fields in anisotropic plasmas
+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−
1/k
+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−
How do particles deflect?
Plasma instabilities: Idea
Exponential growth of (chromo)-magnetic fields in anisotropic plasmas
+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−
Net J
Net J
Net J
Net J
+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−
Induced current feeds the magnetic field
Plasma instabilities: Idea
When chromo-magnetic field becomes strong enough to mix colors,currents no longer ”feed” the magnetic field. Growth is cut off.
No Blue Current
No Blue Current
Plasma instabilities: Slightly more quantitive
Lorentz force: F ∼ gB
Displacement: δz ∼ gBt2/p
−−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−
1/k
+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−+−
x
z
F
t
zδ
+−+−+−+−+−+−++
Plasma instabilites: Slightly more quantitive
Lorentz force: F ∼ gB
Dislocation: δz ∼ gBt2/p
Current:
J ∼ g︸︷︷︸
charge
∫
d3pf (p)
︸ ︷︷ ︸
# of part.s
[δz k]︸ ︷︷ ︸
disp. fraction
∼ kBt2 α
∫d3p
pf (p)
︸ ︷︷ ︸
m2
∼ kBm2t2
Plasma instabilites: Slightly more quantitive
Lorentz force: F ∼ gB
Dislocation: δz ∼ gBt2/p
Current:
J ∼ g︸︷︷︸
charge
∫
d3pf (p)
︸ ︷︷ ︸
# of part.s
[δz k]︸ ︷︷ ︸
disp. fraction
∼ kBt2 α
∫d3p
pf (p)
︸ ︷︷ ︸
m2
∼ kBm2t2
Competes in Maxwell’s equation with ∇× B ∼ k B
⇒ Exponential growth if m2t2 > 1
⇒{
k instz ∼ any
k instx < m
Plasma instabilites: Slightly more quantitive
Lorentz force: F ∼ gB
Dislocation: δz ∼ gBt2/p
Current:
J ∼ g︸︷︷︸
charge
∫
d3pf (p)
︸ ︷︷ ︸
# of part.s
[δz k]︸ ︷︷ ︸
disp. fraction
∼ kBt2 α
∫d3p
pf (p)
︸ ︷︷ ︸
m2
∼ kBm2t2
Competes in Maxwell’s equation with ∇× B ∼ k B
⇒ Exponential growth if m2t2 > 1
⇒{
k instz ∼ any
k instx < m
Saturation when competition in Dµ = kinst + igAµ
⇒ A ∼ kinst/g , or B ∼ kinstA ∼ k2inst/g , or f (kinst) ∼ 1/α
Don’t take my word for it.
50 100 150
m0 t
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
ener
gy d
ensi
ty /
g-2m
04
m0 = 1/a
m0 = 0.77/a
m0 = 0.55/a
m0 = 0.45/a
E2/2
B2/2
k*
4/4
Lasym = 4 Lmax = 16
Bodeker and Rummukainen (0705.0180) and many others. . .
Plasma instabilites: More complicated distribtutions
Strong anisotropy:
f (~p) ∼ α−cΘ(Qs − p)Θ(δQs − pz)
t
Q
m/δzp
δQ
p
m
Weak anisotropy:
f (~p) ∼ f0(|~p|)(1 + ǫF (~p))
ε1/2mzp
p
εt
Plasma instabilites: Momentum transfer
Hard parton traveling through magnetic fields receives coherent kicks frompatches of same-sign magnetic fields
−1l coh ~kinst
∆pkick ∼ g B lcoh
q t ∼ Nkick︸ ︷︷ ︸
t/lcoh
(∆pkick)2
q ∼ α lcoh B2
Weak anisotropy: qǫ ∼ ǫ3/2m3
Strong anisotropy: qδ ∼ m3/δ2
The new bottom-up
Important physics:
1 soft splitting: creation of a soft thermal bath
2 hard splitting: breaking of the hard particles
3 Plasma instabilities, screening
In particular, elastic scattering irrelevant
The new bottom-up: Early stages: Qst < α−12/5
Broadening of the hard particle distribution dominated by the plasmainstabilities (qel ≪ qinst) originating from the scale Qs
t
Q
m/δzp
δQ
p
m
-1 0 1
0
1
Initial condition
d
cf~α−1
t~α−1t~α−5/2 t~α−3/2
Free streamingelastic
Instabilities
Formation of thermal cloud
The new bottom-up: Early stages: Qst < α−12/5
Broadening of the hard particle distribution dominated by the plasmainstabilities (qel ≪ qinst) originating from the scale Qs
t
Q
m/δzp
δQ
p
m
-1 0 1
0
1
Initial condition
d
cf~α−1
t~α−1t~α−5/2 t~α−3/2
Free streamingelastic
Instabilities
Formation of thermal cloud
Even the instabilities are not strong enough to thermalize when f ≫ 1⇒ classical theory does not thermalize under longitudinal expansion!
The new bottom-up: Early stages: Qst < α−12/5
Broadening of the hard particle distribution dominated by the plasmainstabilities (qel ≪ qinst) originating from the scale Qs
t
Q
m/δzp
δQ
p
m
-1 0 1
0
1
Initial condition
d
cf~α−1
t~α−1t~α−5/2 t~α−3/2
Free streamingelastic
Instabilities
Formation of thermal cloud
qδ ∼ m3/δ2, m2 ∼ α δ f Q2s , δ ∼ pz/Qs ∼
√
qδt/Qs , f ∼ 1/(αδQs t)
⇒ δ ∼ (Qst)−1/8, f (Qs) ∼ (Qs t)
−7/8, qδ ∼ Q3s (Qst)
−5/4
The new bottom-up: Late stages: α−12/5
< Qt < α−5/2:
Q
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
T
t
p
p
zpz
Splitting creates a soft T-bath
The new bottom-up: Late stages: α−12/5
< Qt < α−5/2:
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
T
t
Q
ε
p
zpzp
Splitting creates a soft T-bath
The expansion and anisotropic rainmake T-bath anisotropicǫ ∼ t/tiso ∼ qt/T 2
The new bottom-up: Late stages: α−12/5
< Qt < α−5/2:
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
m
t
Q
ε
p
zpzp
T ε1/2
Splitting creates a soft T-bath
The expansion and anisotropic rainmake T-bath anisotropicǫ ∼ t/tiso ∼ qt/T 2
Anisotropic T-bath generates itsown instabilities. Dominatesqǫ ∼ ǫ3/2m3 for (Qt) > α−12/5
The new bottom-up: Late stages: α−12/5
< Qt < α−5/2:
t
Q
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
zp
Tzp
ksplit
t
Q
δQ
p
zp
ε1/2
ε
m
p
zp
T
Splitting creates a soft T-bath
The expansion and anisotropic rainmake T-bath anisotropicǫ ∼ t/tiso ∼ qt/T 2
Anisotropic T-bath generates itsown instabilities. Dominatesqǫ ∼ ǫ3/2m3 for (Qt) > α−12/5
Magnetic field induced splitting eatsthe hard particles: ksplit ∼ α2qǫt
2
The new bottom-up: Late stages: α−12/5
< Qt < α−5/2:
t
Q
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
pt
Q
δQ
zp
Tzp
ksplit
t
Q
δQ
p
zp
ε1/2
ε
m
p
zp
T
Splitting creates a soft T-bath
The expansion and anisotropic rainmake T-bath anisotropicǫ ∼ t/tiso ∼ qt/T 2
Anisotropic T-bath generates itsown instabilities. Dominatesqǫ ∼ ǫ3/2m3 for (Qt) > α−12/5
Magnetic field induced splitting eatsthe hard particles: ksplit ∼ α2qǫt
2
q ∼ α3Q3s
T ∼ αQs(Qs t)1/4
ksplit ∼ α5(Qt)2Qs
τ0 ∼ α−5/2Q−1s
The new bottom-up: Late stages: α−12/5
< Qt < α−5/2:
tpt
m
ε
p
zpzp
T ε1/2
Splitting creates a soft T-bath
The expansion and anisotropic rainmake T-bath anisotropicǫ ∼ t/tiso ∼ qt/T 2
Anisotropic T-bath generates itsown instabilities. Dominatesqǫ ∼ ǫ3/2m3 for (Qt) > α−12/5
Magnetic field induced splitting eatsthe hard particles: ksplit ∼ α2qǫt
2
q ∼ α3Q3s
T ∼ αQs(Qs t)1/4
ksplit ∼ α5(Qt)2Qs
τ0 ∼ α−5/2Q−1s
At (Qs t) ∼ α−5/2, ksplit ∼ Qs .Plasma instabilities continue todominate until (Qst) ∼ α−45/16.
Summary, complete catalog:
Nielsen−OlesenInstabilities
Occupancy
Broadening: non−HTL,unsaturated plasma instabilities
2
3b
Plasma instabilitiesPlay No Role
Anisotropy
α
α
c=−ln(f)/ln( )α 1d=−1/5
d=−1/7
d=−1/3
d=1/3
c=−1/3c=−1
c=1
slope
1
slope −1/3
slope −1/3
slope −1/3slope −3/8
d=ln( )/ln( )δ
d=−ln( )/ln( )ε
instabilities saturated plasma
Broadening:
5
6
9:
7:
8:
slope −9/23
3a 4a
4:
4b
We identified the relevant physics in occupancy-anisotropy plane...
Summary, complete (parametric) description of HIC:0
8/7
16/1
1
96/5
5
56/2
516
0/69
12/5 5/2
45/1
6
56/4
1
Time: a=ln(Qt)/ln(α−1)
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
Mom
entu
m: l
n(p/
Q)/
ln(α
−1)
C
B
A
D
E
F G I
H
J K O T
S
NR
M
Q
PL
a/4
3a/16 (24-9a)/64
(144-57a)/136
(16+5a)/64(184+15a)/544
(24-a)/68
(104
-41a
)/28
5-2a
(15-
6a)/1
6
(36-
15a)
/14
(52-3a)/112
1-a/4
(15a-8)/841/3
(8a-11)/24
(-56+73a)/128
pmax
kiso
kold
Tk
new-inst
ksplit
Featuring:
Obscure powers:α
184+15a554
Redshifted relics
Synchrotronabsorption
Complicated angledependence
. . . and many more
...applied to the case of longitudinal expansion.
Conclusions:
Thermalization occurs even for α ≪ 1
Outlook:
Conclusions:
Thermalization occurs even for α ≪ 1
Thermalization happens ”bottom up”.
Outlook:
Conclusions:
Thermalization occurs even for α ≪ 1
Thermalization happens ”bottom up”.
Anisotropic screening leads (always) to plasma instabilities
Outlook:
Conclusions:
Thermalization occurs even for α ≪ 1
Thermalization happens ”bottom up”.
Anisotropic screening leads (always) to plasma instabilities
In HIC: Plasma instabilities dominate dynamics! Lead to fasterthermalization
Outlook:
Conclusions:
Thermalization occurs even for α ≪ 1
Thermalization happens ”bottom up”.
Anisotropic screening leads (always) to plasma instabilities
In HIC: Plasma instabilities dominate dynamics! Lead to fasterthermalization
Stronger dynamics lead to faster thermalization α−5/2 < α−13/5
Outlook:
Conclusions:
Thermalization occurs even for α ≪ 1
Thermalization happens ”bottom up”.
Anisotropic screening leads (always) to plasma instabilities
In HIC: Plasma instabilities dominate dynamics! Lead to fasterthermalization
Stronger dynamics lead to faster thermalization α−5/2 < α−13/5
Outlook:
Here, treatment was purely parametric:Numerical treatment underway τ0 ∼ #α−5/2
Three-scale problem: Three different treatments of d.o.f.’s on lattice
Conclusions:
Thermalization occurs even for α ≪ 1
Thermalization happens ”bottom up”.
Anisotropic screening leads (always) to plasma instabilities
In HIC: Plasma instabilities dominate dynamics! Lead to fasterthermalization
Stronger dynamics lead to faster thermalization α−5/2 < α−13/5
Outlook:
Here, treatment was purely parametric:Numerical treatment underway τ0 ∼ #α−5/2
Three-scale problem: Three different treatments of d.o.f.’s on lattice
”Beyond” the leading order?
Thermalization as quenching of jets with p ∼ Qs .Hard particles perturbative, medium non-perturbative?
Conclusions:
Thermalization occurs even for α ≪ 1
Thermalization happens ”bottom up”.
Anisotropic screening leads (always) to plasma instabilities
In HIC: Plasma instabilities dominate dynamics! Lead to fasterthermalization
Stronger dynamics lead to faster thermalization α−5/2 < α−13/5
Outlook:
Here, treatment was purely parametric:Numerical treatment underway τ0 ∼ #α−5/2
Three-scale problem: Three different treatments of d.o.f.’s on lattice
”Beyond” the leading order?
Thermalization as quenching of jets with p ∼ Qs .Hard particles perturbative, medium non-perturbative?
Apply same methods to
Cosmology, reheatingNeutron stars, anomalous viscosities
Second attractor?
Nielsen−OlesenInstabilities
αδd=ln( )/ln( )
Occupancyc=−ln(f)/ln( )α
d=−1/7
d=−1/3
c=−1/3
8:
slope −9/23
Anisotropy
slope
1
c=1
InitialCondition
Attractor 2
Attractor 1
Bath Forms
Soft Particle
d=−ln( )/ln( )ε α Scattering
Plasma Instabilities
f (p) ∼ α−c (1 + α−dF (p))
Second attractor?Assume nearly isotropic distribution:
Longitudinal expansion reduces energy: ε ∝ t−4/3
pz reduces.
Plasma-instabilities keep system nearly isotropic ǫ ∼ tiso/t ∼ Q2
qǫt
Q reduces
Instability induced particle joining at hard scale
Q increases
ǫ ∼ α−d ∼ (Qst)−
8135 , f (Q) ∼ α−1(Qst)
56135 ,Q ∼ Qs(Qs t)
−
31135
Why do we think the first attractor is the relevant one?
(1/ )αc=ln(f) /ln
Condition
Nielsen−OlesenInstabilities
Scattering
PlasmaInstabilities
InstabilitiesDevelop
Plasma
Insta
bilitie
s
Plasma
Act
Attractor 2
Attractor 1
Initialt
z
p
p
Initially, unstable modes in unpopulated part of phase space
Growth from vacuum fluctuations, slowed by a log:tgrowth ∼ Q−1
s ln2(1/α)