This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Collision system size scan of collective flows in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

S. Zhang Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433200433, China    Y. G. Ma111Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: [email protected] Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433200433, China Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China    G. L. Ma Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433200433, China    J. H. Chen Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433200433, China    Q. Y. Shou Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433200433, China    W. B. He Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433200433, China    C. Zhong Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433200433, China
Abstract

Initial geometrical distribution and fluctuation can affect the collective expansion in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. This effect may be more evident in small system (such as B + B) than in large one (Pb + Pb). This work presents the collision system dependence of collective flows and discusses about effects on collective flows from initial fluctuations in a framework of a multiphase transport model. The results shed light on system scan on experimental efforts to small system physics.

pacs:
25.75.Gz, 12.38.Mh, 24.85.+p
preprint: 1

I Introduction

Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) state was predicted by Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and could be formed under ultra dense-hot conditions by heavy ion collisions Karsch (2002). This new state of nuclear matter is considered to be produced at the early state of central nucleus-nucleus collisions in experiments Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration); Müller et al. (2012), which presents collective motion in partonic level Abelev et al. (2007). The properties of QGP are still an open question in heavy-ion collision community, which is not only depending on properties of QCD but also sensitive to initial geometry and dynamical fluctuations. The initial geometrical distribution and fluctuation can remain influence to observables at final state, such as collective flows Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration, STAR Collaboration, STAR Collaboration, STAR Collaboration); Adare et al. (2018); Aidala et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Hanbury-Brown-Twiss (HBT) correlation Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration); Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration) and fluctuation Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration). Some theoretical works Voloshin et al. (2008); Alver and Roland (2010); Lacey et al. (2011) presented flow/eccentricity analysis methods related to initial geometry fluctuations. A multi-phase transport (AMPT) model Ma et al. (2016, 2014); Han et al. (2011) demonstrated initial geometry fluctuations of partons created in Au + Au collisions and its effects on elliptic and triangular flow. Initial fluctuation effects have been also proposed on some observables or physics quantities, such as on collective obeservabels Song et al. (2017); Wang et al. (2013); Guo et al. (2017); Xu et al. (2018), conserved quantities Luo and Xu (2017), density fluctuations Ko and Li (2016), and chiral effects Shou et al. (2014); Wang and Zhao (2018) etc.

To understand these observables in experiments and QGP phase transition, there are also some open questions for small collision systems (such as C + C or O + O collisions) as well as large collision systems (such as Au + Au or Pb + Pb collisions), (1) how to understand transformation coefficient from initial geometry distribution or fluctuation to momentum distribution at final stage in hydrodynamical mechanism Song et al. (2017); Gardim et al. (2012); Niemi et al. (2013); Sievert and Noronha-Hostler (2019); (2) how to understand similar phenomena for some observables for small systems with high multiplicity and large systems Adare et al. (2018); Aidala et al. (PHENIX Collaboration); Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration); Huang (for STAR Collaboration); Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration); Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration); Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration); Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration); Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration); (3) does the matter created in different size of system undergo the similar dynamical process and have similar viscosity  Liu and Lacey (2018a, b)?, and the last two questions are closely related. Recently the small system experiments were proposed for RHIC-STAR Huang et al. (2019) and LHC-ALICE Citron et al. (2018) to study the initial geometry distribution and fluctuations effects on momentum distribution at final stage. And lots of theoretical works contributed physics explanation and analysis method to this subject Nagle et al. (2014); Lim et al. (2019a, b); Welsh et al. (2016); Zhao et al. (2018); Sievert and Noronha-Hostler (2019); Katz et al. (2019). By using Trento+v-USPhydro, Ref. Sievert and Noronha-Hostler (2019) investigated the response of collective flow to initial geometry asymmetry in small and large systems, and based on Trento+v-USPhydro+DAB-MOD, Ref. Katz et al. (2019) made predictions for system size scan of heavy flavour flow in the LHC energy region. And some detailed introduction and discussion can be found in some recent review works Loizides (2016); Nagle and Zajc (2018).

In this work, a system scan from 10B + 10B to 208Pb + 208Pb are studied by using a multi-phase transport (AMPT) model. The collective harmonic flow coefficients (vnv_{n}, nn=2,3,4) are calculated, as well as the fourth order linear and nonlinear mode coefficient v4Lv_{4}^{L} and v4,22v_{4,22}. The corresponding initial geometry eccentricity coefficients are also presented. It is found that vnv_{n} decreases smoothly with the increasing of multiplicity created in the most central collisions of different system as the system size dependence of eccentricity. The response of collective flow to initial geometry asymmetry are discussed and the system size dependence of the response are related to the viscous properties of the system. It suggests to investigate the response for higher order nonlinear mode in a system scan experiment project.

II A brief introduction to AMPT and algorithm

In this work, the relativistic heavy-ion collisions are simulated by a multi-phase transport model Lin et al. (2005) with version 2.26t7b2.26t7b. The initial state of the collisions is described by the Heavy Ion Jet Interaction Generator (HIJING) model Wang and Gyulassy (1991); Gyulassy and Wang (1994) and the melted partons from HIJING interact with each other in the Zhang’s Parton Cascade (ZPC) model Zhang (1998). And then the interacting-ceased partons are converted to hadrons by a simple quark coalescence model or the Lund string fragmentation. The hadrons participate in rescattering process through a relativistic transport model Li and Ko (1995). AMPT was successful to describe physics in relativistic heavy-ion collisions for RHIC Lin et al. (2005) and LHC Ma and Lin (2016), including pion-HBT correlations Lin et al. (2002), di-hadron azimuthal correlations Ma et al. (2006); Wang et al. (2019), collective flow Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration); Bzdak and Ma (2014a) and strangeness production Jin et al. (2018, 2019).

The hot-dense matter created in collisions expands in longitudinal direction (i.e. always defined by beam direction) as well as transverse direction. In transverse direction, distribution of produced particles in momentum space can be expanded in azimuthal distribution as Poskanzer and Voloshin (1998),

Ed3Nd3p=12πd2NpTdpTdy(1+i=1N2vncos[n(ϕΨRP)]),\displaystyle E\frac{d^{3}N}{d^{3}p}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{d^{2}N}{p_{T}dp_{T}dy}\left(1+\sum_{i=1}^{N}2v_{n}\cos[n(\phi-\Psi_{RP})]\right), (1)

where EE is the energy, pTp_{T} is transverse momentum, yy is rapidity, and ϕ\phi is azimuthal angle of the particle. ΨRP\Psi_{RP} is reaction plane angle. The Fourier coefficients, vn(n=1,2,3,)v_{n}(n=1,2,3,...), characterize the collective flows of different orders in azimuthal anisotropies.

The collective flow is driven from the initial anisotropy in geometry space. To investigate transformation from geometry to final momentum space, the initial geometry eccentricity coefficients εn\varepsilon_{n} can be calculated from the participants via Ma et al. (2016); Voloshin et al. (2008); Alver and Roland (2010); Lacey et al. (2011); Gardim et al. (2012); Liu and Lacey (2018b),

nεneinΦnrneinϕPartrn,\displaystyle\mathrm{\mathcal{E}_{n}\equiv\varepsilon_{n}e^{in\Phi_{n}}\equiv-\frac{\langle r^{n}e^{in\phi_{Part}}\rangle}{\langle r^{n}\rangle}}, (2)

where, rr=x2+y2\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}} and ϕPart\phi_{Part} are coordinate position and azimuthal angle of initial participants in the collision zone in the recentered coordinates system (x\langle x\rangle=y\langle y\rangle=0). Φn\Phi_{n} is the initial participant plane and εn\varepsilon_{n}=|n|21/2\langle|\mathcal{E}_{n}|^{2}\rangle^{1/2}. The bracket \langle\rangle means the average over the transverse position of all participants event by event. Note that for the definition of eccentricity coefficients εn\varepsilon_{n}, r2r^{2} weight was alternative and it was discussed in Refs. Gardim et al. (2012); Lacey et al. (2011).

Two particle correlation (2PC) method with Δη\Delta\eta gap is usually employed to calculate the collective flow coefficients in theoretical analysis and experimental measurements Aad et al. (2012); Chatrchyan et al. (2012, 2013); Bzdak and Ma (2014b); Khachatryan et al. (2017) . In this work we adopted the 2PC-method introduced in Ref. Aad et al. (2012) to calculate transverse momentum pTp_{T} and centrality dependence of the collective flow.

The Q-cumulant method Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration); Bilandzic et al. (2011); Ma et al. (2016, 2014); Gardim et al. (2012); Liu and Lacey (2018b) is also popular in flow coefficients analysis. The complex flow vectors Bhalerao et al. (2015); Liu and Lacey (2018b) is defined by VnvneinΨn{einϕ}V_{n}\equiv v_{n}e^{in\Psi_{n}}\equiv\{e^{in\phi}\}, vn=|Vn|21/2v_{n}=\langle|V_{n}|^{2}\rangle^{1/2}, where ϕ\phi is azimuthal angle of final particles, vnv_{n} and Ψn\Psi_{n} is the nnth order flow coefficients and azimuthal direction of the event, {}\{...\} denotes the average over all final particles in each event.

For the higher-order collective flow coefficients (n>3n>3), the nonlinear mode couplings derived from lower-order collective flow coefficients should be taken into account except the linear response related to eccentricity, which was discussed in Refs. Teaney and Yan (2012); Bhalerao et al. (2015); Liu and Lacey (2018b). Here we employ the formulas of the fourth order linear-mode, nonlinear-mode flow and geometry coefficients suggested in Ref. Liu and Lacey (2018b), i.e. v4,22v_{4,22} \approx v4cos(4Ψ44Ψ2)\langle v_{4}\cos(4\Psi_{4}-4\Psi_{2})\rangle, v4Lv_{4}^{L}=v42v4,222\sqrt{v_{4}^{2}-v_{4,22}^{2}}, 4L\mathcal{E}_{4}^{L}=4+3r22r422\mathcal{E}_{4}+\frac{3\langle r^{2}\rangle^{2}}{\langle r^{4}\rangle}\mathcal{E}_{2}^{2}, and ε4,22\varepsilon_{4,22} = ϵ24\sqrt{\langle\epsilon_{2}^{4}}\rangle.

From hydrodynamics viewpoint, the relationship between initial geometry eccentricity coefficients and flow coefficients can be described by vnεnv_{n}\propto\varepsilon_{n}, (n = 2, and 3) Song et al. (2017); Gardim et al. (2012); Niemi et al. (2013). The response of vnv_{n} to εn\varepsilon_{n} showed the efficiency of the transformation from initial geometry properties to final momentum space in heavy-ion collisions. For higher-order initial geometry eccentricity coefficients and flow coefficients, the relationship can be described by linear and nonlinear-mode Teaney and Yan (2012); Bhalerao et al. (2015); Liu and Lacey (2018b), vnLv_{n}^{L} \propto εnL\varepsilon_{n}^{L} and vn,ijεn,ijv_{n,ij}\propto\varepsilon_{n,ij}. Hydrodynamics with viscous corrections gives the acoustic scaling of anisotropic flow in shape-engineered events Liu and Lacey (2018a, b); Shuryak and Zahed (2013); Staig and Shuryak (2011),

vnL/εnLexp(n2βNtrack1/3),\displaystyle v_{n}^{L}/\varepsilon_{n}^{L}\propto\exp\left(-n^{2}\beta\left<N_{track}\right>^{-1/3}\right), (3)
vn,ij/εn,ijexp((i2+j2)βNtrack1/3),\displaystyle v_{n,ij}/\varepsilon_{n,ij}\propto\exp\left(-(i^{2}+j^{2})\beta\left<N_{track}\right>^{-1/3}\right), (4)

where LL for n>3n>3, the parameter β\beta is related to ratio of shear viscosity (η\eta) over entropy density (ss), namely βη/s\beta\propto\eta/s and Ntrack\left<N_{track}\right> average number of particles created in the collisions with kinetic windows (always in mid-rapidity (|y|<1|y|<1) and 0.2<pT<40.2<p_{T}<4 GeV/c).

III Results and discussion

By using AMPT model, a system scan simulation is performed in this work involving the most central collisions (i.e. impact parameter bb is set to zero) of 10B + 10B, 12C + 12C, 16O + 16O, 20Ne + 20Ne, 40Ca + 40Ca, 96Zr + 96Zr and 208Pb + 208Pb systems, at center of mass energy sNN=\sqrt{s_{NN}}=6.73 TeV. The generated event numbers are presented in Table 1. Via the introduced flow analysis methods, the harmonic flow coefficients are calculated in these collision systems under the kinetic windows, transverse momentum 0.2<pT<30.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/cc and rapidity |y|<1.0|y|<1.0.

Table 1: Collision system and number of event for each system.
system 10B+10B 12C+12C 16O+16O 20Ne+20Ne 40Ca+40Ca 96Zr+96Zr 208Pb + 208Pb
event number 2.3×105\times 10^{5} 4.2×105\times 10^{5} 2.4×105\times 10^{5} 1.9×105\times 10^{5} 4.9×104\times 10^{4} 1.4×104\times 10^{4} 3.5×103\times 10^{3}
Refer to caption
Figure 1: Eccentricity coefficients for the most central collision events in 10B + 10B, 12C + 12C, 16O + 16O, 20Ne + 20Ne, 40Ca + 40Ca, 96Zr + 96Zr and 208Pb + 208Pb at center of mass energy sNN=\sqrt{s_{NN}}=6.73 TeV.

The initial geometry eccentricity coefficients εn\varepsilon_{n} (nn = 2, 3, 4) are calculated by using Eq. (2) and the nonlinear-mode eccentricity coefficients are also calculated, as shown in figure 1. The eccentricity coefficients εn\varepsilon_{n} (nn=2,3,4) are all smoothly decreasing with the increasing of size of collision systems (Ntrack\left<N_{track}\right>) from 10B + 10B collisions to 208Pb + 208Pb collisions. The fourth order linear-mode ε4,22\varepsilon_{4,22} and nonlinear-mode coefficients ε4L\varepsilon_{4}^{L} also presented the similar system size dependence. The initial geometry eccentricity coefficients εn\varepsilon_{n} (nn = 3, 4) are calculated with r2r^{2} and rnr^{n} weight separately. It can be seen from the results in smaller system that εn\varepsilon_{n} (n=3,4) is higher with rnr^{n} weight than with r2r^{2} weight, which is mainly due to the weight from periphery of the initial system. However, the different rr wights give the comparable value of εn\varepsilon_{n} (n=3,4) for larger systems. For smaller systems by r2r^{2} weight it shows ε2>ε3ε4\varepsilon_{2}>\varepsilon_{3}\sim\varepsilon_{4} and by rnr^{n} weight ε4>ε2ε3\varepsilon_{4}>\varepsilon_{2}\sim\varepsilon_{3} and ε2>ε3>ε4L\varepsilon_{2}>\varepsilon_{3}>\varepsilon_{4}^{L}. In the following calculations, we only use eccentricity coefficients calculated by rnr^{n} weight. This system size dependence of eccentricity coefficients indicates that geometrical fluctuation is more significant in small system than in large system in the most central collisions (bb set zero).

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Left columns: Collective flows v2v_{2}, v3v_{3} and v4v_{4} as a function of pTp_{T} for the most central collision events in 10B + 10B, 12C + 12C, 16O + 16O, 20Ne + 20Ne, 40Ca + 40Ca, 96Zr + 96Zr and 208Pb + 208Pb at center of mass energy sNN=\sqrt{s_{NN}}=6.73 TeV via two-particle correlation method. Right columns: the ratios of vn/ϵnv_{n}/\epsilon_{n} (n=2,3) as a function of pTp_{T}. (color online)

The collective flows vnv_{n} (n=2,3,4) as a function of transverse momentum pTp_{T} are shown in panel (a), (c) and (e) in figure 2 for 16O+16O (Ntrack\langle N_{track}\rangle=141) collisions and 40Ca+40Ca (Ntrack\langle N_{track}\rangle=418) collisions atsNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 6.73 TeV by using two-particle correlation method with |Δη|>1|\Delta\eta|>1. Also, the pTp_{T} dependence of vn/ϵnv_{n}/\epsilon_{n} (n=2,3) is also calculated and presented in panel (b) and (d) respectively. The results are also compared with experimental measurements by the RHIC-STAR data Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration) in A+A (U+U, Au+Au, Cu+Au, Cu+Cu) collisions (Ntrack\left<N_{track}\right>=140, |η|<1.0|\eta|<1.0) at top RHIC energy by two particle correlation method with |Δη|>0.7|\Delta\eta|>0.7 and the LHC-ALICE data Aamodt et. al. (2011) in Pb+Pb collisions (centrality 30-40%, Ntrack\left<N_{track}\right>=426, |η|<0.8|\eta|<0.8) at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76 TeV by two particle correlation method with |Δη|>1|\Delta\eta|>1. Note that Ntrack\langle N_{track}\rangle in 16O+16O (40Ca+40Ca) collisions is approximate to that in A+A collisions from RHIC-STAR (ALICE) experiment. It is found that the collective flows increase with pTp_{T} which are similar to those from experiments. In 16O+16O collisions the elliptic flows are close to those in Cu+Au collisions from STAR experiments, and the triangular flows are higher than that from experiments. While in 40Ca+40Ca collisions the elliptic flows are lower than that from ALICE experiment, triangular flows are higher than ALICE experiment results and quadrangular flows are similar to experiment results. These collision systems have different eccentricity and this comparison can not give more information about transferring asymmetry from geometry space to momentum space. Panel (b) and (d) in figure 2 give the vn/ϵnv_{n}/\epsilon_{n} (n=2,3), respectively. vn/ϵnv_{n}/\epsilon_{n} (n=2,3) are larger in Ca+Ca collisions than in O+O collisions by AMPT model. Since the v2/ϵ2v_{2}/\epsilon_{2} from the STAR collaboration in U+U, Au+Au, Cu+Au, Cu+Cu collisions drops in one group, the plot gives a band with the maximum uncertainties from Ref. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration). v2/ϵ2v_{2}/\epsilon_{2} and v3/ϵ3v_{3}/\epsilon_{3} from the ALICE collaboration in Pb+Pb collisions with centrality 30-40% from Ref. Aamodt et. al. (2011). It is found the pTp_{T} dependence of vn/ϵnv_{n}/\epsilon_{n} (n=2,3) in Ca+Ca (O+O) collisions by AMPT model are consistent with those from the ALICE (STAR) and display an obvious system size dependence of vn/ϵnv_{n}/\epsilon_{n}.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Collective flows calculated by two-particle correlation method and cumulant method in different collision systems. (color online)
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Ratio of different order collective flows to initial geometry eccentricities for different collision systems. (color online)

The pTp_{T} integrated collective flows v2v_{2}, v3v_{3} and v4v_{4} are calculated in the above introduced collision systems at center of mass energy sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 6.73 TeV and sown in figure 3, via different flow analysis methods, i.e. panels (a), (c) and (e) represent two-particle correlation with Δη>1\Delta\eta>1, panels (b), (d) and (f) represent 2-particle cumulants. The fourth order nonlinear-mode v4,22v_{4,22} and linear-mode v4Lv_{4}^{L} calculated by 2-particle cumulants method are also shown in panel (f) in figure 3. The collective flows v2v_{2}, v3v_{3} and v4v_{4} decrease with the increasing of collision system size from 10B + 10B to 208Pb + 208Pb at the most central collisions, as the system size dependence of eccentricity displays, by using AMPT model. v4,22v_{4,22} presents the similar system size dependence as v4v_{4} and this results in that v4Lv_{4}^{L} shows a more flat trend with the increasing of system size. The experimental results are from the STAR data Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration) in U+U, Au+Au, Cu+Au, C+Cu collisions and from ALICE data Aamodt et. al. (2011) in Pb+Pb collisions. Two particle correlation method with Δη\Delta\eta gap was adopted in the experimental flow analysis. The STAR analysis use cuts of 0.2<pT<40.2<p_{T}<4 GeV/cc, |η|<1.0|\eta|<1.0 and |Δη|>0.7|\Delta\eta|>0.7, ALICE cuts of 0.2<pT<50.2<p_{T}<5 GeV/cc and |η|<0.8|\eta|<0.8 and |Δη|>1.0|\Delta\eta|>1.0. The elliptic flow v2v_{2} and triangular v3v_{3} in Au+Au and U+U collisions increase and then decrease with the increasing of Ntrack\left<N_{track}\right>. v2v_{2} in Pb+Pb collisions also presents the similar Ntrack\left<N_{track}\right> dependence. v2v_{2} from AMPT presents a more linear Ntrack\left<N_{track}\right> dependence and is different from those of experiments, v3v_{3} and v4v_{4} give the similar Ntrack\left<N_{track}\right> dependence trend as experimental results demonstarte.

To further investigate the system size dependence of momentum asymmetry from initial geometry asymmetry, the response of collective flow to initial geometry asymmetry, v2/ε2v_{2}/\varepsilon_{2}, v3/ε3v_{3}/\varepsilon_{3}, v4L/ε4Lv_{4}^{L}/\varepsilon_{4}^{L}, v4,22/ε4,22v_{4,22}/\varepsilon_{4,22}, are calculated and shown in figure 4. Panel (a) and (c) are the results with flow coefficients via two-particle correlation method and panels (b), (d) and (e) with that via two-particle cumulants. v2/ε2v_{2}/\varepsilon_{2}, v3/ε3v_{3}/\varepsilon_{3}, v4L/ε4Lv_{4}^{L}/\varepsilon_{4}^{L}, and v4,22/ε4,22v_{4,22}/\varepsilon_{4,22} increase with collision system size and different flow analysis methods present the same system dependence with similar values. The upwards trend of system size dependence of the response indicates that the transferring efficiency from initial geometry asymmetry to final momentum is higher in large size collision systems than in small ones, on other words the higher multiplicity the system has, the higher transferring efficiency the evolution of system would get. These results are similar to those from experiments Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration); Aamodt et. al. (2011) and more closer to ALICE results in Pb+Pb collisions as a function of sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

The extracted β\beta by equation (4) from Ntrack\left<N_{track}\right> dependence of the response of vnv_{n} to εn\varepsilon_{n} could provide information if the collision systems present similar shear viscous properties, in other words if the collision systems exhibit the similar QGP fluid friction and undergoes similar dynamical process. The lines on figure 4 show simultaneously fitting for vn/εnv_{n}/\varepsilon_{n} (nn=2,3) and v4L/ε4Lv_{4}^{L}/\varepsilon_{4}^{L} by equation (4). It give β\beta = 0.641±0.0020.641\pm 0.002 for two-particle correlation method and β\beta = 0.626±0.0040.626\pm 0.004 for two-particle cumulant method. The fitting results are similar to those (β\beta=0.82±0.020.82\pm 0.02) extracted by fitting v2/ϵ2v_{2}/\epsilon_{2} in small and large collision system at top RHIC energies by RHIC-STAR Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration). It is interesting that the fitting to v4,22/ε4,22v_{4,22}/\varepsilon_{4,22} give lower value of β\beta = 0.281±0.0310.281\pm 0.031. In Ref. Xu and Ko (2011) the ratio of shear viscosity to entropy was estimated to be 0.273 in Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76 TeV. β\beta extracted by using equation (4) from the response of vnv_{n} to εn\varepsilon_{n} is higher than that in Ref. Xu and Ko (2011), and β\beta from v4,22/ε4,22v_{4,22}/\varepsilon_{4,22} is closer to that. Note that this maybe result from different methods and difference parameter setting in previous AMPT result  Xu and Ko (2011) (sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76 TeV, μ\mu=3.2 fm1fm^{-1}) and in this work (sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 6.73 TeV, μ\mu=2.3fm1fm^{-1}), here μ\mu is the screening mass in the partonic matter. These results indicate that it should be investigated in experiment for energy dependence of β\beta and the response of collective flow to initial asymmetry for higher-order nonlinear mode.

IV Summary

The collective flow harmonic coefficients are calculated and presented at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 6.73 TeV for the most central collision systems from small one to large one, namely 10B + 10B, 12C + 12C, 16O + 16O, 20Ne + 20Ne, 40Ca + 40Ca, 96Zr + 96Zr and 208Pb + 208Pb collisions. From these results, it is found that collective flows show smooth changing trend with the increasing of the collision system size and is sensitive to initial geometry eccentricities. The response of collective flows to initial geometry asymmetries, namely v2/ε2v_{2}/\varepsilon_{2}, v3/ε3v_{3}/\varepsilon_{3}, v4L/ε4Lv_{4}^{L}/\varepsilon_{4}^{L}, v4,22/ε4,22v_{4,22}/\varepsilon_{4,22}, are also calculated and seems sensitive to system size (or multiplicities). With aid of hydrodynamics with viscous corrections, the acoustic scaling of anisotropic flow in shape-engineered events is performed to the system size dependence of collective flow. The parameter β\beta related to shear viscosity over entropy density ratio seems consistent with that from experiments, but β\beta from v4,22/ε4,22v_{4,22}/\varepsilon_{4,22} is lower than those from v2/ε2v_{2}/\varepsilon_{2}, v3/ε3v_{3}/\varepsilon_{3} and v4L/ε4Lv_{4}^{L}/\varepsilon_{4}^{L}. The system scan experiment is therefore proposed to systematically explore the effects from initial geometry fluctuations, and then the transformation efficiency from initial geometry to final momentum could be studied.

We are grateful for discussions with Profs. J. Y. Jia (Stony Brook University), C. M. Ko (Texas A&M University), Z. W. Lin (East Carolina University), Aihong Tang (BNL), and Constantin Loizides (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contract Nos. 11875066, 11890714, 11421505 and 11775288, National Key R&D Program of China under Grant No. 2016YFE0100900 and 2018YFE0104600, the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of the CAS under Grant No. QYZDJ-SSW-SLH002, and the Key Research Program of the CAS under Grant NO. XDPB09.

References

  • Karsch (2002) F. Karsch, Nuclear Physics A 698, 199 (2002).
  • Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration) J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005).
  • Müller et al. (2012) B. Müller, J. Schukraft, and B. Wysłouch, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 361 (2012).
  • Abelev et al. (2007) B. I. Abelev, M. M. Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed, B. D. Anderson, D. Arkhipkin, G. S. Averichev, Y. Bai, J. Balewski, O. Barannikova, L. S. Barnby, et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 112301 (2007).
  • Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration) L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 162301 (2014).
  • Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration) L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 88, 014902 (2013a).
  • Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration) L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 88, 014904 (2013b).
  • Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration) L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 252302 (2015a).
  • Adare et al. (2018) A. Adare, C. Aidala, N. N. Ajitanand, Y. Akiba, M. Alfred, V. Andrieux, K. Aoki, N. Apadula, H. Asano, C. Ayuso, et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 222301 (2018).
  • Aidala et al. (PHENIX Collaboration) C. Aidala et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Nature Physics 15, 214 (2019).
  • Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration) L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 92, 014904 (2015b).
  • Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration) A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), arXiv:1410.2559 (2014).
  • Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration) L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 92, 021901(R) (2015c).
  • Voloshin et al. (2008) S. Voloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, and A. Tang et al., Phys. Lett. B 659, 537 (2008).
  • Alver and Roland (2010) B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C 81, 054905 (2010).
  • Lacey et al. (2011) R. A. Lacey, R. Wei, and J. Jia et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 044902 (2011).
  • Ma et al. (2016) L. Ma, G. L. Ma, and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 94, 044915 (2016).
  • Ma et al. (2014) L. Ma, G. L. Ma, and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 89, 044907 (2014).
  • Han et al. (2011) L. X. Han, G. L. Ma, and Y. G. Ma et al., Phys. Rev. C 84, 064907 (2011).
  • Song et al. (2017) H.-C. Song, Y. Zhou, and K. Gajdosova, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 99 (2017).
  • Wang et al. (2013) J. Wang, Y. G. Ma, and G. Q. Zhang et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech. 24, 030501 (2013).
  • Guo et al. (2017) C.-C. Guo, W.-B. He, and Y.-G. Ma, Chinese Physics Letters 34, 092101 (2017).
  • Xu et al. (2018) Z.-W. Xu, S. Zhang, Y.-G. Ma, J.-H. Chen, and C. Zhong, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 186 (2018).
  • Luo and Xu (2017) X.-F. Luo and N. Xu, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 112 (2017).
  • Ko and Li (2016) C. M. Ko and F. Li, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 27, 140 (2016).
  • Shou et al. (2014) Q.-Y. Shou, G.-L. Ma, and Y.-G. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 90, 047901 (2014).
  • Wang and Zhao (2018) F. Q. Wang and J. Zhao, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 179 (2018).
  • Gardim et al. (2012) F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024908 (2012).
  • Niemi et al. (2013) H. Niemi, G. S. Denicol, H. Holopainen, and P. Huovinen, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054901 (2013).
  • Sievert and Noronha-Hostler (2019) M. Sievert and J. Noronha-Hostler, Phys. Rev. C 100, 024904 (2019).
  • Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration) A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 212301 (2013).
  • Huang  (for STAR Collaboration) S. Huang (for STAR Collaboration), Nuclear Physics A 982, 475 (2019).
  • Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration) S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Physics Letters B 718, 795 (2013).
  • Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration) G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 182302 (2013).
  • Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration) B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Physics Letters B 719, 29 (2013).
  • Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration) G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 172301 (2016).
  • Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration) J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Nature Physics 13, 535–539 (2017).
  • Liu and Lacey (2018a) P. Liu and R. A. Lacey, Phys. Rev. C 98, 031901 (2018a).
  • Liu and Lacey (2018b) P. Liu and R. A. Lacey, Phys. Rev. C 98, 021902 (2018b).
  • Huang et al. (2019) S. Huang, Z. Chen, J. Jia, and W. Li, arXiv:1904.10415v1 (2019).
  • Citron et al. (2018) Z. Citron et al., arXiv:1812.06772v2 (2018).
  • Nagle et al. (2014) J. L. Nagle, A. Adare, S. Beckman, T. Koblesky, J. O. Koop, D. McGlinchey, P. Romatschke, J. Carlson, J. E. Lynn, and M. McCumber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 112301 (2014).
  • Lim et al. (2019a) S. H. Lim, J. Carlson, C. Loizides, D. Lonardoni, J. E. Lynn, J. L. Nagle, J. D. Orjuela Koop, and J. Ouellette, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044904 (2019a).
  • Lim et al. (2019b) S. Lim, Q. Hu, R. Belmont, K. Hill, J. Nagle, and D. Perepelitsa, arXiv:1902.11290 (2019b).
  • Welsh et al. (2016) K. Welsh, J. Singer, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 94, 024919 (2016).
  • Zhao et al. (2018) X.-L. Zhao, Y.-G. Ma, and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 97, 024910 (2018).
  • Katz et al. (2019) R. Katz, C. A. G. Prado, J. Noronha-Hostler, and A. A. P. Suaide, arXiv:1907.03308v1 (2019).
  • Loizides (2016) C. Loizides, Nuclear Physics A 956, 200 (2016), the XXV International Conference on Ultrarelativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions: Quark Matter 2015.
  • Nagle and Zajc (2018) J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 68, 211 (2018).
  • Lin et al. (2005) Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, and B.-A. Li et al., Phys. Rev. C 72, 064901 (2005).
  • Wang and Gyulassy (1991) X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3501 (1991).
  • Gyulassy and Wang (1994) M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, Computer Physics Communications 83, 307 (1994).
  • Zhang (1998) B. Zhang, Computer Physics Communications 109, 193 (1998).
  • Li and Ko (1995) B.-A. Li and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2037 (1995).
  • Ma and Lin (2016) G.-L. Ma and Z.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054911 (2016).
  • Lin et al. (2002) Z.-w. Lin, C. M. Ko, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 152301 (2002).
  • Ma et al. (2006) G.-L. Ma, S. Zhang, and Y. G. Ma et al., Phys. Lett. B 641, 362 (2006).
  • Wang et al. (2019) H. Wang, J. H. Chen, Y. G. Ma, and S. Zhang, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 30, 185 (2019).
  • Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration) B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 252301 (2008).
  • Bzdak and Ma (2014a) A. Bzdak and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 252301 (2014a).
  • Jin et al. (2018) X.-H. Jin, J.-H. Chen, and Y.-G. Ma et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 54 (2018).
  • Jin et al. (2019) X.-H. Jin, J.-H. Chen, and Z. Lin et al., Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 11012 (2019).
  • Poskanzer and Voloshin (1998) A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1671 (1998).
  • Aad et al. (2012) G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 86, 014907 (2012).
  • Chatrchyan et al. (2012) S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J C 72, 1 (2012).
  • Chatrchyan et al. (2013) S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 724, 213 (2013).
  • Bzdak and Ma (2014b) A. Bzdak and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 252301 (2014b).
  • Khachatryan et al. (2017) V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 765, 193 (2017).
  • Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration) L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 86, 054908 (2012).
  • Bilandzic et al. (2011) A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings, and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044913 (2011).
  • Bhalerao et al. (2015) R. S. Bhalerao, J.-Y. Ollitrault, and S. Pal, Physics Letters B 742, 94 (2015).
  • Teaney and Yan (2012) D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C 86, 044908 (2012).
  • Shuryak and Zahed (2013) E. Shuryak and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044915 (2013).
  • Staig and Shuryak (2011) P. Staig and E. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C 84, 044912 (2011).
  • Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration) J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 172301 (2019).
  • Aamodt et. al. (2011) K. Aamodt et. al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 032301 (2011).
  • Xu and Ko (2011) J. Xu and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034904 (2011).