Showing 10 of 121 results
Notwithstanding decades of progress since Yukawa first developed a description of the force between nucleons in terms of meson exchange, a full understanding of the strong interaction remains a major challenge in modern science. One remaining difficulty arises from the non-perturbative nature of the strong force, which leads to the phenomenon of quark confinement at distances on the order of the size of the proton. Here we show that in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, where quarks and gluons are set free over an extended volume, two species of produced vector (spin-1) mesons, namely $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$, emerge with a surprising pattern of global spin alignment. In particular, the global spin alignment for $\phi$ is unexpectedly large, while that for $K^{*0}$ is consistent with zero. The observed spin-alignment pattern and magnitude for the $\phi$ cannot be explained by conventional mechanisms, while a model with a connection to strong force fields, i.e. an effective proxy description within the Standard Model and Quantum Chromodynamics, accommodates the current data. This connection, if fully established, will open a potential new avenue for studying the behaviour of strong force fields.
We have performed the most comprehensive resonance-model fit of $\pi^-\pi^-\pi^+$ states using the results of our previously published partial-wave analysis (PWA) of a large data set of diffractive-dissociation events from the reaction $\pi^- + p \to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+ + p_\text{recoil}$ with a 190 GeV/$c$ pion beam. The PWA results, which were obtained in 100 bins of three-pion mass, $0.5 < m_{3\pi} < 2.5$ GeV/$c^2$, and simultaneously in 11 bins of the reduced four-momentum transfer squared, $0.1 < t' < 1.0$ $($GeV$/c)^2$, are subjected to a resonance-model fit using Breit-Wigner amplitudes to simultaneously describe a subset of 14 selected waves using 11 isovector light-meson states with $J^{PC} = 0^{-+}$, $1^{++}$, $2^{++}$, $2^{-+}$, $4^{++}$, and spin-exotic $1^{-+}$ quantum numbers. The model contains the well-known resonances $\pi(1800)$, $a_1(1260)$, $a_2(1320)$, $\pi_2(1670)$, $\pi_2(1880)$, and $a_4(2040)$. In addition, it includes the disputed $\pi_1(1600)$, the excited states $a_1(1640)$, $a_2(1700)$, and $\pi_2(2005)$, as well as the resonancelike $a_1(1420)$. We measure the resonance parameters mass and width of these objects by combining the information from the PWA results obtained in the 11 $t'$ bins. We extract the relative branching fractions of the $\rho(770) \pi$ and $f_2(1270) \pi$ decays of $a_2(1320)$ and $a_4(2040)$, where the former one is measured for the first time. In a novel approach, we extract the $t'$ dependence of the intensity of the resonances and of their phases. The $t'$ dependence of the intensities of most resonances differs distinctly from the $t'$ dependence of the nonresonant components. For the first time, we determine the $t'$ dependence of the phases of the production amplitudes and confirm that the production mechanism of the Pomeron exchange is common to all resonances.
Real and imaginary parts of the normalized transition amplitudes $\mathcal{T}_a$ of the 14 selected partial waves in the 1100 $(m_{3\pi}, t')$ cells (see Eq. (12) in the paper). The wave index $a$ represents the quantum numbers that uniquely define the partial wave. The quantum numbers are given by the shorthand notation $J^{PC} M^\varepsilon [$isobar$] \pi L$. We use this notation to label the transition amplitudes in the column headers. The $m_{3\pi}$ values that are given in the first column correspond to the bin centers. Each of the 100 $m_{3\pi}$ bins is 20 MeV/$c^2$ wide. Since the 11 $t'$ bins are non-equidistant, the lower and upper bounds of each $t'$ bin are given in the column headers. The transition amplitudes define the spin-density matrix elements $\varrho_{ab}$ for waves $a$ and $b$ according to Eq. (18). The spin-density matrix enters the resonance-model fit via Eqs. (33) and (34). The transition amplitudes are normalized via Eqs. (9), (16), and (17) such that the partial-wave intensities $\varrho_{aa} = |\mathcal{T}_a|^2$ are given in units of acceptance-corrected number of events. The relative phase $\Delta\phi_{ab}$ between two waves $a$ and $b$ is given by $\arg(\varrho_{ab}) = \arg(\mathcal{T}_a) - \arg(\mathcal{T}_b)$. Note that only relative phases are well-defined. The phase of the $1^{++}0^+ \rho(770) \pi S$ wave was set to $0^\circ$ so that the corresponding transition amplitudes are real-valued. In the PWA model, some waves are excluded in the region of low $m_{3\pi}$ (see paper and [Phys. Rev. D 95, 032004 (2017)] for a detailed description of the PWA model). For these waves, the transition amplitudes are set to zero. The tables with the covariance matrices of the transition amplitudes for all 1100 $(m_{3\pi}, t')$ cells can be downloaded via the 'Additional Resources' for this table.
Decay phase-space volume $I_{aa}$ for the 14 selected partial waves as a function of $m_{3\pi}$, normalized such that $I_{aa}(m_{3\pi} = 2.5~\text{GeV}/c^2) = 1$. The wave index $a$ represents the quantum numbers that uniquely define the partial wave. The quantum numbers are given by the shorthand notation $J^{PC} M^\varepsilon [$isobar$] \pi L$. We use this notation to label the decay phase-space volume in the column headers. The labels are identical to the ones used in the column headers of the table of the transition amplitudes. $I_{aa}$ is calculated using Monte Carlo integration techniques for fixed $m_{3\pi}$ values, which are given in the first column, in the range from 0.5 to 2.5 GeV/$c^2$ in steps of 10 MeV/$c^2$. The statistical uncertainties given for $I_{aa}$ are due to the finite number of Monte Carlo events. $I_{aa}(m_{3\pi})$ is defined in Eq. (6) in the paper and appears in the resonance model in Eqs. (19) and (20).
Fluctuations of conserved quantities such as baryon number, charge, and strangeness are sensitive to the correlation length of the hot and dense matter created in relativistic heavy-ion collisions and can be used to search for the QCD critical point. We report the first measurements of the moments of net-kaon multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4, and 200 GeV. The collision centrality and energy dependence of the mean ($M$), variance ($\sigma^2$), skewness ($S$), and kurtosis ($\kappa$) for net-kaon multiplicity distributions as well as the ratio $\sigma^2/M$ and the products $S\sigma$ and $\kappa\sigma^2$ are presented. Comparisons are made with Poisson and negative binomial baseline calculations as well as with UrQMD, a transport model (UrQMD) that does not include effects from the QCD critical point. Within current uncertainties, the net-kaon cumulant ratios appear to be monotonic as a function of collision energy.
We report measurements of the nuclear modification factor, $R_{ \mathrm{CP}}$, for charged hadrons as well as identified $\pi^{+(-)}$, $K^{+(-)}$, and $p(\overline{p})$ for Au+Au collision energies of $\sqrt{s_{_{ \mathrm{NN}}}}$ = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, and 62.4 GeV. We observe a clear high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ net suppression in central collisions at 62.4 GeV for charged hadrons which evolves smoothly to a large net enhancement at lower energies. This trend is driven by the evolution of the pion spectra, but is also very similar for the kaon spectra. While the magnitude of the proton $R_{ \mathrm{CP}}$ at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ does depend on collision energy, neither the proton nor the anti-proton $R_{ \mathrm{CP}}$ at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ exhibit net suppression at any energy. A study of how the binary collision scaled high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ yield evolves with centrality reveals a non-monotonic shape that is consistent with the idea that jet-quenching is increasing faster than the combined phenomena that lead to enhancement.
Charged hadron RCP for RHIC BES energies. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT-independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy. The vertical uncertainty bars correspond to statistical uncertainties and the boxes to systematic uncertainties.
Identified particle (Pion Plus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Pion Minus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Kaon Plus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Kaon Minus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Proton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Antiproton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 3.0 - 3.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.
Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 4.0 - 4.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.
Glauber Fit Parameters
Nch at each Collision Energy (GeV)
Ncoll at each Collision Energy (GeV)
Npart at each Collision Energy (GeV)
The value of $\sigma^{NN}_{inel}$ used in the Monte Carlo Glauber simulation at each collision energy
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
We present measurements of bulk properties of the matter produced in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV using identified hadrons ($\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, $p$ and $\bar{p}$) from the STAR experiment in the Beam Energy Scan (BES) Program at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). Midrapidity ($|y|<$0.1) results for multiplicity densities $dN/dy$, average transverse momenta $\langle p_T \rangle$ and particle ratios are presented. The chemical and kinetic freeze-out dynamics at these energies are discussed and presented as a function of collision centrality and energy. These results constitute the systematic measurements of bulk properties of matter formed in heavy-ion collisions over a broad range of energy (or baryon chemical potential) at RHIC.
The average number of participating nucleons (⟨Npart⟩) for various collision centralities in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7–39 GeV.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π- in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) k- in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) k+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) pbar in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
The midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 as a function of √sNN for π±, K±, and p and p ̄ in 0–5% Au+Au collisions at BES energies. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
⟨mT⟩ − m of π±, K±, and p and p ̄ as a function of √sNN . Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) results are shown for 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at BES energies. The errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in central 0–5% Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
K/π ratio at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) for central 0–5% Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
The GCE model particle yields fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The GCE model particle ratios fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The SCE model particle yields fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The SCE model particle ratios fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
Chemical freeze-out parameter γS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter μB plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter μS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter Tch plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter R plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μS between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter γS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter μB plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter Tch plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter R plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter R between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
" (a) Energy dependence of kinetic and chemical freezeout temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions. The curves represent various theoretical predictions [81,82]. (b) Energy dependence of average transverse radial flow velocity for central heavy-ion collisions. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,53–64,66] and references therein. The BES data points are for 0–5% central collisions, AGS energies are mostly for 0–5%, SPS energies are for mostly 0–7%, and top RHIC and LHC energies are for 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
The extreme temperatures and energy densities generated by ultra-relativistic collisions between heavy nuclei produce a state of matter with surprising fluid properties. Non-central collisions have angular momentum on the order of 1000$\hbar$, and the resulting fluid may have a strong vortical structure that must be understood to properly describe the fluid. It is also of particular interest because the restoration of fundamental symmetries of quantum chromodynamics is expected to produce novel physical effects in the presence of strong vorticity. However, no experimental indications of fluid vorticity in heavy ion collisions have so far been found. Here we present the first measurement of an alignment between the angular momentum of a non-central collision and the spin of emitted particles, revealing that the fluid produced in heavy ion collisions is by far the most vortical system ever observed. We find that $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ hyperons show a positive polarization of the order of a few percent, consistent with some hydrodynamic predictions. A previous measurement that reported a null result at higher collision energies is seen to be consistent with the trend of our new observations, though with larger statistical uncertainties. These data provide the first experimental access to the vortical structure of the "perfect fluid" created in a heavy ion collision. They should prove valuable in the development of hydrodynamic models that quantitatively connect observations to the theory of the Strong Force. Our results extend the recent discovery of hydrodynamic spin alignment to the subatomic realm.
Lambda and AntiLambda polarization as a function of collision energy. A 0.8% error on the alpha value used in the paper is corrected in this table. Systematic error bars include those associated with particle identification (negligible), uncertainty in the value of the hyperon decay parameter (2%) and reaction plane resolution (2%) and detector efficiency corrections (4%). The dominant systematic error comes from statistical fluctuations of the estimated combinatoric background under the (anti-)$\Lambda$ mass peak.
Lambda and AntiLambda polarization as a function of collision energy calculated using the new $\alpha_\Lambda=0.732$ updated on PDG2020. Systematic error bars include those associated with particle identification (negligible), uncertainty in the value of the hyperon decay parameter (2%) and reaction plane resolution (2%) and detector efficiency corrections (4%). The dominant systematic error comes from statistical fluctuations of the estimated combinatoric background under the (anti-)$\Lambda$ mass peak.
We present measurements of three-particle correlations for various harmonics in Au+Au collisions at energies ranging from $\sqrt{s_{{\rm NN}}}=7.7$ to 200 GeV using the STAR detector. The quantity $\langle\cos(m\phi_1+n\phi_2-(m+n)\phi_3)\rangle$ is evaluated as a function of $\sqrt{s_{{\rm NN}}}$, collision centrality, transverse momentum, $p_T$, pseudo-rapidity difference, $\Delta\eta$, and harmonics ($m$ and $n$). These data provide detailed information on global event properties like the three-dimensional structure of the initial overlap region, the expansion dynamics of the matter produced in the collisions, and the transport properties of the medium. A strong dependence on $\Delta\eta$ is observed for most harmonic combinations consistent with breaking of longitudinal boost invariance. Data reveal changes with energy in the two-particle correlation functions relative to the second-harmonic event-plane and provide ways to constrain models of heavy-ion collisions over a wide range of collision energies.
We present measurements of 2$^{nd}$ order azimuthal anisotropy ($v_{2}$) at mid-rapidity $(|y|<1.0)$ for light nuclei d, t, $^{3}$He (for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200, 62.4, 39, 27, 19.6, 11.5, and 7.7 GeV) and anti-nuclei $\bar{\rm d}$ ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200, 62.4, 39, 27, and 19.6 GeV) and $^{3}\bar{\rm He}$ ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV) in the STAR (Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC) experiment. The $v_{2}$ for these light nuclei produced in heavy-ion collisions is compared with those for p and $\bar{\rm p}$. We observe mass ordering in nuclei $v_{2}(p_{T})$ at low transverse momenta ($p_{T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$). We also find a centrality dependence of $v_{2}$ for d and $\bar{\rm d}$. The magnitude of $v_{2}$ for t and $^{3}$He agree within statistical errors. Light-nuclei $v_{2}$ are compared with predictions from a blast wave model. Atomic mass number ($A$) scaling of light-nuclei $v_{2}(p_{T})$ seems to hold for $p_{T}/A < 1.5$ GeV/$c$. Results on light-nuclei $v_{2}$ from a transport-plus-coalescence model are consistent with the experimental measurements.
We present results from a harmonic decomposition of two-particle azimuthal correlations measured with the STAR detector in Au+Au collisions for energies ranging from $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=7.7$ GeV to 200 GeV. The third harmonic $v_3^2\{2\}=\langle \cos3(\phi_1-\phi_2)\rangle$, where $\phi_1-\phi_2$ is the angular difference in azimuth, is studied as a function of the pseudorapidity difference between particle pairs $\Delta\eta = \eta_1-\eta_2$. Non-zero {\vthree} is directly related to the previously observed large-$\Delta\eta$ narrow-$\Delta\phi$ ridge correlations and has been shown in models to be sensitive to the existence of a low viscosity Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) phase. For sufficiently central collisions, $v_3^2\{2\}$ persist down to an energy of 7.7 GeV suggesting that QGP may be created even in these low energy collisions. In peripheral collisions at these low energies however, $v_3^2\{2\}$ is consistent with zero. When scaled by pseudorapidity density of charged particle multiplicity per participating nucleon pair, $v_3^2\{2\}$ for central collisions shows a minimum near {\snn}$=20$ GeV.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
No description provided.
Elliptic flow (v_2) values for identified particles at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions measured by the STAR experiment in the Beam Energy Scan at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at sqrt{s_{NN}}= 7.7--62.4 GeV are presented for three centrality classes. The centrality dependence and the data at sqrt{s_{NN}}= 14.5 GeV are new. Except at the lowest beam energies we observe a similar relative v_2 baryon-meson splitting for all centrality classes which is in agreement within 15% with the number-of-constituent quark scaling. The larger v_2 for most particles relative to antiparticles, already observed for minimum bias collisions, shows a clear centrality dependence, with the largest difference for the most central collisions. Also, the results are compared with A Multiphase Transport Model and fit with a Blast Wave model.
No description provided.
The difference in $v_{2}$ between particles (X) and their corresponding antiparticles $\bar{X}$ (see legend) as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for 10%-40% central Au + Au collisions. The systematic errors are shown by the hooked error bars. The dashed lines in the plot are fits with a power-law function.
No description provided.
The difference in $v_{2}$ between protons and antiprotons as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for 0%-10%, 10%-40% and 40%-80% central Au + Au collisions. The systematic errors are shown by the hooked error bars. The dashed lines in the plot are fits with a power-law function.
No description provided.
The relative difference. The systematic errors are shown by the hooked error bars. The dashed lines in the plot are fits with a power-law function.
No description provided.
The $v_{2}$ difference between protons and antiprotons (and between $\pi^{+}$ and $pi^{-}$) for 10%-40% centrality Au+Au collisions at 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, and 19.6 GeV. The $v_{2}{BBC} results were slightly shifted horizontally.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But, sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.