looking for the qcd critical point on the...
TRANSCRIPT
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
Looking for the QCD critical point on the lattice
Philippe de ForcrandETH Zürich and CERN
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
The minimum phase diagram of QCD
T
µ
confined
QGP
Color superconductor
Tc
• Dictated by perturbation theory at large T or large µ• Phase transitions or crossovers ?
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
The minimum phase diagram of QCD
T
µ
confined
QGP
Color superconductor
Tc ♥QCD critical point
• Dictated by perturbation theory at large T or large µ• Phase transitions or crossovers ?• Crossover at (µ= 0,Tc), first-order at small T → QCD critical point
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
The sign problem
• Integrate over fermions: det(D/ +m +µγ0) complex unless µ= 0 or µ= iµi
→ standard importance sampling⇔ 〈Re(baryon density)〉= 0
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
The sign problem
• Integrate over fermions: det(D/ +m +µγ0) complex unless µ= 0 or µ= iµi
→ standard importance sampling⇔ 〈Re(baryon density)〉= 0
• Reweighting: - simulate theory with no sign pb., eg. |det(µ)|- reweight each measurement with ρ(U) = det(U,µ)
|det(U,µ)| complex phase
- av. “sign” 〈ρ(U)〉= Z(µ,det)Z(µ,|det |) ∼ exp(−V ∆f (µ)
T )→ large V ?, large µ ?
1. maintain statistical accuracy on 〈ρ〉: sign pb.2. ensure that Z (µ,det) is properly sampled: overlap pb.
1 and 2 require statistics ∝ exp(+V )
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
The sign problem
• Integrate over fermions: det(D/ +m +µγ0) complex unless µ= 0 or µ= iµi
→ standard importance sampling⇔ 〈Re(baryon density)〉= 0
• Reweighting: - simulate theory with no sign pb., eg. |det(µ)|- reweight each measurement with ρ(U) = det(U,µ)
|det(U,µ)| complex phase
- av. “sign” 〈ρ(U)〉= Z(µ,det)Z(µ,|det |) ∼ exp(−V ∆f (µ)
T )→ large V ?, large µ ?
1. maintain statistical accuracy on 〈ρ〉: sign pb.2. ensure that Z (µ,det) is properly sampled: overlap pb.
1 and 2 require statistics ∝ exp(+V )
• Measure derivatives w.r.t. µ at µ= 0: 〈W (µ)〉= 〈W (µ= 0)〉+∑k ck( µ
πT
)k
- directly at µ= 0 MILC, TARO, Bielefeld-Swansea, Gavai-Gupta,..
- by fitting polynomial to µ= iµi results D’Elia-Lombardo, PdF-Philipsen,..
Controlled thermodynamics and continuum limits⇒ derivatives only
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
The good news: curvature of the pseudo-critical line
All with Nf = 4 staggered fermions, amq = 0.05,Nt = 4 (a∼ 0.3 fm)PdF & Kratochvila LAT05
4.8
4.82
4.84
4.86
4.88
4.9
4.92
4.94
4.96
4.98
5
5.02
5.04
5.06
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1.0
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5β
T/T
c
µ/T
a µ
confined
QGP<sign> ~ 0.85(1)
<sign> ~ 0.45(5)
<sign> ~ 0.1(1)
D’Elia, Lombardo 163
Azcoiti et al., 83
Fodor, Katz, 63
Our reweighting, 63
deForcrand, Kratochvila, 63
imaginary µ2 param. imag. µdble reweighting, LY zerosSame, susceptibilities
canonical
Agreement for µ/T . 1
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
The good news: curvature of the pseudo-critical line
• Tc(µ) simpler/more precise by analytic continuation of Tc(iµi):determine Tc(µ= iµi) and fit results with polynomial
Tc(µ)Tc(µ=0) = 1−∑k=1 t2k
( µπT
)2k
For Nt = 4: curvature t2(Nf ,mq) varies from ∼ 0.3 to ∼ 1 Schmidt 06
• Indications (PdF& OP Nt = 6; Fodor et al. LAT08): t2 decreases as a→ 0
• Extrapolation mq →mphys, a→ 0 feasible G. Endrodi LAT09
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
Why is curvature of pseudo-critical line important?
T
µ
confined
QGP
Color superconductor
Tc
♥freeze-out
crit. pt.
IF Tc(µ) really flatter than freeze-out curve (a→ 0: factor ∼ 2−6 in d2Tcdµ2
∣∣∣µ=0
?)
=⇒ exp. signal from critical pt. modified/washed out by evolution until freeze-out
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
The bad news: locating the critical point
����
������������
���
���
����
���
���
����
���
���
��������
������
������
���
���
���
���
����
CO94
NJL01NJL89b
CJT02
NJL89a
LR04
RM98
LSM01
HB02 LTE03LTE04
3NJL05
INJL98
LR01
PNJL06
130
9
5
2
17
50
0
100
150
200
0 400 800 1000 1200 1400 1600600200
T ,MeV
µB, MeV
M. Stephanov, hep-lat/0701002
• Challenging task:detect divergent correlation length (2nd order)vs finite but large (crossover, 1rst order)on small lattice
Mission impossible?
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
0. The ultimate reweightingFodor & Katz: hep-lat/0402006 (∼ physical quark masses)
•
−→−→−→Glasgow
(µqE ,TE) = (120(13),162(2)) MeV
Strategy: reweight from (µ= 0,Tc) along pseudo-critical line
Legitimate concerns:• Discretization error? Nt = 4 =⇒ a∼ 0.3 fm• Abrupt qualitative change near µE :
abrupt change of physics or breakdown of algorithm (Splittorff)?
→ repeat with conservative approach (derivative)Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
1. Taylor expansion
• Reweighting gives exact µ dependence, BUT limited to small V ,µError non-Gaussian, analysis subtle→breakdown may go unnoticed(Glasgow meth)
• Instead, obtain reliable V → ∞ behaviour of Taylor coefficients:
P(T ,µ) = P(T ,µ= 0)︸ ︷︷ ︸
indep. calc.
+∆P(T ,µ), ∆P(T ,µ)T 4 = ∑k=1 c2k(T )
( µT
)2k
c2k = 〈Tr( degree 2k polynomial in D/−1, ∂D/∂µ )〉µ=0→ vanilla HMC
• From {c2k}, obtain all thermodynamic info: EOS and Tc(µ) and crit. pt. and ...
• As µT increases, need higher-order c2k ’s to control truncation error
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
1. Taylor expansion
• Reweighting gives exact µ dependence, BUT limited to small V ,µError non-Gaussian, analysis subtle→breakdown may go unnoticed(Glasgow meth)
• Instead, obtain reliable V → ∞ behaviour of Taylor coefficients:
P(T ,µ) = P(T ,µ= 0)︸ ︷︷ ︸
indep. calc.
+∆P(T ,µ), ∆P(T ,µ)T 4 = ∑k=1 c2k(T )
( µT
)2k
c2k = 〈Tr( degree 2k polynomial in D/−1, ∂D/∂µ )〉µ=0→ vanilla HMC
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
c2SB limit
SB (Nt=4)
T/T0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
c4
SB limit
SB (Nt=4)T/T0
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
c6
T/T0
C. Schmidt, hep-lat/0610116
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
1. Taylor expansion
• Reweighting gives exact µ dependence, BUT limited to small V ,µError non-Gaussian, analysis subtle→breakdown may go unnoticed(Glasgow meth)
• Instead, obtain reliable V → ∞ behaviour of Taylor coefficients:
P(T ,µ) = P(T ,µ= 0)︸ ︷︷ ︸
indep. calc.
+∆P(T ,µ), ∆P(T ,µ)T 4 = ∑k=1 c2k(T )
( µT
)2k
c2k = 〈Tr( degree 2k polynomial in D/−1, ∂D/∂µ )〉µ=0→ vanilla HMC
• From {c2k}, obtain all thermodynamic info: EOS and Tc(µ) and crit. pt. and ...
• As µT increases, need higher-order c2k ’s to control truncation error
• Higher order k ⇒ Tr(D/−2k , ..), ie. more noise vectors, more cancellations..
• ..and also larger volumes → work ∼ 36k (Karsch et al.) at least
• Current best: Nt =8,6th order HOTQCD, Nt =6,8th order Gavai&Gupta, 0806.2233
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Ratio method: ”effective radius of convergence”
PT 4 =
∞
∑n=0
c2n(T )( µ
T
)2n
Singularity (µE ,TE)⇒ µETE
= limn→∞
√∣∣∣∣
c2n
c2n+2
∣∣∣∣(TE) Karsch et al.
Similar, forχq
T 2 : Gavai & Gupta“µE/TE < 0.6”
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Ratio method: ”effective radius of convergence”
PT 4 =
∞
∑n=0
c2n(T )( µ
T
)2n
Singularity (µE ,TE)⇒ µETE
= limn→∞
√∣∣∣∣
c2n
c2n+2
∣∣∣∣(TE) Karsch et al.
Similar, forχq
T 2 : Gavai & Gupta“µE/TE < 0.6”
Critique: • Need n→ ∞, not n = 1,2,3;
√∣∣∣
c2c4
∣∣∣ is not a lower or upper bound
• Robust criterion to choose TE?• Smallest convergence radius is NOT CEP Stephanov hep-lat/0603014
T
µ
Tc ♥(TE,µE)
0 TE
TT TE
>TE<
Complex mu plane
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Ratio method: ”effective radius of convergence”
PT 4 =
∞
∑n=0
c2n(T )( µ
T
)2n
Singularity (µE ,TE)⇒ µETE
= limn→∞
√∣∣∣∣
c2n
c2n+2
∣∣∣∣(TE) Karsch et al.
Similar, forχq
T 2 : Gavai & Gupta“µE/TE < 0.6”
Critique: • Need n→ ∞, not n = 1,2,3;
√∣∣∣
c2c4
∣∣∣ is not a lower or upper bound
• Robust criterion to choose TE?• Smallest convergence radius is NOT CEP Stephanov hep-lat/0603014
Remember Fodor & Katz:
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Ratio method: ”effective radius of convergence”
PT 4 =
∞
∑n=0
c2n(T )( µ
T
)2n
Singularity (µE ,TE)⇒ µETE
= limn→∞
√∣∣∣∣
c2n
c2n+2
∣∣∣∣(TE) Karsch et al.
Similar, forχq
T 2 : Gavai & Gupta“µE/TE < 0.6”
Critique: • Need n→ ∞, not n = 1,2,3;
√∣∣∣
c2c4
∣∣∣ is not a lower or upper bound
• Robust criterion to choose TE?• Smallest convergence radius is NOT CEP Stephanov hep-lat/0603014
Remember Fodor & Katz:need high-order derivatives
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Im β
0
µ
courtesy Z. Fodorthe whole story
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Ratio method: ”effective radius of convergence”
PT 4 =
∞
∑n=0
c2n(T )( µ
T
)2n
Singularity (µE ,TE)⇒ µETE
= limn→∞
√∣∣∣∣
c2n
c2n+2
∣∣∣∣(TE) Karsch et al.
Similar, forχq
T 2 : Gavai & Gupta“µE/TE < 0.6”
Critique: • Need n→ ∞, not n = 1,2,3;
√∣∣∣
c2c4
∣∣∣ is not a lower or upper bound
• Robust criterion to choose TE?• Smallest convergence radius is NOT CEP Stephanov hep-lat/0603014
Can systematic errorbe controlled ?
First goal: discriminatebetween CEP and no CEP
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Im β
0
µ
courtesy Z. Fodorthe whole story
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Case study on toy model, with Roger Herrigel
• Idea: study Taylor coeffs of ∆PT 4
( µT
)≡∆P̂(µ̂)
and “effective radius of convergence” in controlled situation
• Ansatz: ∆P̂(µ̂) = ∆P̂SB2 + log(cosh(λ(T̂−1)+ ∆P̂SB
2 ))− log(cosh(λ(T̂−1)))
Why ? - correct limits high-T , low-T- c2 ≈ (1+ tanh(λ(T̂ −1)), sigmoid, no phase trans., no CEP- single parameter λ controls width of crossover (rescaling of T̂ )
• no singularity on real µ̂ axis→ test for spurious signals
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
P(T
,µ=
0) /
PS
B
T/Tc
Pressure
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Toy ansatz: compare with Bielefeld et al.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
c2SB limit
SB (Nt=4)
T/T0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
c4
SB limit
SB (Nt=4)T/T0
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
c6
T/T0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
c2
T/Tc
c2
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
c4
T/Tc
c4
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2c
6T/Tc
c6
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Toy ansatz: compare with Bielefeld et al.
-0.006
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
c8
T/Tc
c8
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
c1
0
T/Tc
c10
Oscillatory pattern→ ck = 0 at lower T̂ as k increases
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Toy ansatz: compare with Bielefeld et al.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
T/T0
χq
µq/T=0.0µq/T=0.5µq/T=1.0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2ch
i qT/Tc
µ/T=0.0µ/T=0.5µ/T=1.0
• Quark susceptibility rises, even without phase transition
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Toy ansatz: compare with Bielefeld et al.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
T/T0
χq
µq/T=0.0µq/T=0.5µq/T=1.0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2ch
i qT/Tc
µ/T=1.5, exact4th order6th order8th order
• Quark susceptibility rises, even without phase transition• Truncation may increase susceptibility
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Toy ansatz: compare with Bielefeld et al.
0.8 1 1.2 1.4T/T
c
-0.5
0
0.5
1 c4/c
2c
6/c
4
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2T/Tc
c4/c2c6/c4
• Qualitative agreement below Tc although HRG not built-in
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Toy ansatz: compare with Bielefeld et al.
0 2 4 6 8 10 120
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
ρ0
ρ2
ρ4
Tc(µ
q)
T/T0
µq/T
0
SB(ρ2)SB(ρ
0)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
T/T
c
µ/Tc
rho2-4rho4-6
• Qualitative agreement
• IF we know that there is a crit. point: how to choose TE?? BJS et al.
• Can we predict whether or not there is a critical point ??
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
A safer strategy ?
phys.point
00
N = 2
N = 3
N = 1
f
f
f
m s
sm
Gauge
m , mu
1st
2nd orderO(4) ?
2nd orderZ(2)
2nd orderZ(2)
crossover
1st
d
tric
∞
∞Pure
−→︸︷︷︸
if chiral CEP
* QCD critical point
crossover 1rst0
∞
Real world
X
Heavy quarks
mu,dms
µ
•
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
A safer strategy ?
phys.point
00
N = 2
N = 3
N = 1
f
f
f
m s
sm
Gauge
m , mu
1st
2nd orderO(4) ?
2nd orderZ(2)
2nd orderZ(2)
crossover
1st
d
tric
∞
∞Pure
−→︸︷︷︸
if chiral CEP
Two strategies:1 follow vertical line: m = mphys, turn on µ→ radius of convergence?2 follow critical surface: m = mcrit(µ)
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Strategy 2: follow critical surface PdF & O. Philipsen
(a) Identify µ= 0 critical line:
phys.point
00
N = 2
N = 3
N = 1
f
f
f
m s
sm
Gauge
m , mu
1st
2nd orderO(4) ?
2nd orderZ(2)
2nd orderZ(2)
crossover
1st
d
tric
∞
∞Pure
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
ams
amu,d
Nf=2+1
physical point
mstric - C mud
2/5
Nf = 3
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Strategy 2: follow critical surface PdF & O. Philipsen
(b) Turn on imaginary µ and measure mc(µ)mc(0) = 1+∑k=1 ck
( µπT
)2k
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
ams
amu,d
Nf=2+1
physical point
mstric - C mud
2/5
Nf = 3
Nf = 3 Nf = 2+1, ms = mphyss
consistent 83×4 and 123×4, ∼ 5×106 traj. 163×4, Grid computing, ∼ 106 traj.mc(µ)mc(0) = 1−3.3(3)
( µπT
)2−47(20)( µ
πT
)4
︸ ︷︷ ︸
8thderivative of P
− . . . mu,dc (µ)
mu,dc (0)
= 1−39(8)( µ
πT
)2− . . .
• Higher order terms? Convergence?
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Strategy 2: follow critical surface PdF & O. Philipsen
QCD critical point DISAPPEARED
crossover 1rst0
∞
Real world
X
Heavy quarks
mu,dms
µ
No chiral crit. pt. at small chem. pot., µT . O (1), for Nt =4 (a∼0.3 fm)
cf. Ejiri 0812.1534→( µ
T
)CEP∼ 2.4
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Consistency with effective models?
• Restoration of UA(1) anomaly favors first-order finite T transitionChandrasekharan & Mehta
• Progressive restoration of UA(1) symmetry at finite density?Chen et al. 0901.2407NJL +[detq̄i(1− γ5)qj +h.c.]×exp(−µ2/µ2
0)
- backbending of crit. surface- crit. surf. ends when Tc = 0→ still no chiral critical point!
µ
crossover
mu,d
ms
X 1rst0
∞
Real world
Nf=3
• Same pattern with linear sigma model + fluctuationsBowman & Kapusta 0810.0042
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Towards the continuum limit• Critical line recedes away from physical point towards origin
first-ordera = 0
Endrodi, Fodor et al., arXiv:0710.0998
PdF & O. Philipsen, arXiv:0711.0262
Karsch et al., hep-lat/0309116
Nt =4 → Nt =∞ ⇒ change ∼ O (10) !!
IF curvature of critical surface unchanged...
* QCD critical point
crossover 1rst0
∞
Real world
X
Heavy quarks
mu,dms
µ
•↑
•←−
µcrit increases QCD critical point DISAPPEARED
crossover 1rst0
∞
Real world
X
Heavy quarks
mu,dms
µ
•←−
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Towards the continuum limit• Critical line recedes away from physical point towards origin
first-ordera = 0
Endrodi, Fodor et al., arXiv:0710.0998
PdF & O. Philipsen, arXiv:0711.0262
Karsch et al., hep-lat/0309116
Nt =4 → Nt =∞ ⇒ change ∼ O (10) !!
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012
(aµi)2
∆B4/∆(aµi)2
B4(pbp)fit µ2
fit (µ2+µ4)
current status Nf = 3,Nt = 6
mc(µ)mc(0) = 1
{+12(11) µ2 fit−12(15) (µ2 +µ4) fit
( µπT
)2− . . .
|c1| not large: mc(µ)mc(0) ∼ 10 → µ∼ πT
Crit. surface starts almost “vertical”→need higher order to decide on crit. pt.
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Resulting phase diagram (simplest possibility)
Standard scenario Exotic scenario
T
µ
confined
QGP
Color superconductor
m > mc(0)
Tc ♥ T
µ
confined
QGP
Color superconductor
m > mc(0)
Tc
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Arguments for standard wisdom?
• O(4) transition for 2 massless flavors Pisarski & Wilczek⇒ tricritical points (mu,d = 0,ms = ∞,µ= µ∗) and (mu,d = 0,ms = m∗s ,µ= 0)
1rst ordercrossover
mu,d
ms
µ
X 1rst0
∞
1rst order
Real worldHeavy quarks
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Arguments for standard wisdom?
• O(4) transition for 2 massless flavors Pisarski & Wilczek⇒ tricritical points (mu,d = 0,ms = ∞,µ= µ∗) and (mu,d = 0,ms = m∗s ,µ= 0)• Nf = 2 and Nf = 2+1 analytically connected
1rst ordercrossover
mu,d
ms
µ
X 1rst0
∞
1rst order
Real worldHeavy quarks
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Arguments for standard wisdom?
• O(4) transition for 2 massless flavors Pisarski & Wilczek⇒ tricritical points (mu,d = 0,ms = ∞,µ= µ∗) and (mu,d = 0,ms = m∗s ,µ= 0)• Nf = 2 and Nf = 2+1 analytically connected
1rst ordercrossover
mu,d
ms
µ
X 1rst0
∞
1rst order
Real worldHeavy quarks
Critique:• O(4) if strong enough UA(1) anomaly, otherwise first-order
Chandrasekharan & Mehta
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl. Reweighting Taylor Crit. surf.
Arguments for standard wisdom?
• O(4) transition for 2 massless flavors Pisarski & Wilczek⇒ tricritical points (mu,d = 0,ms = ∞,µ= µ∗) and (mu,d = 0,ms = m∗s ,µ= 0)• Nf = 2 and Nf = 2+1 analytically connected
1rst ordercrossover
mu,d
ms
µ
X 1rst0
∞
1rst order
Real worldHeavy quarks
Critique:• O(4) if strong enough UA(1) anomaly, otherwise first-order
Chandrasekharan & Mehta
• Nf = 2 and Nf = 2+1 need not be connected→ study Nf = 2 crit. surf.Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
Conclusions
• Confucius: Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance
• mc(µ)mc(0) = 1+c1
( µπT
)2+ . . . : can control systematics
Non-standard scenario c1 < 0 for Nt = 4
• a→ 0: critical surface far from physical point=⇒ need c1 > 0 and large for µE
TE<∼1, disfavored by data
• QCD critical point?
T
µ
confined
QGP
Color superconductor
m > mc(0)
Tc
µBE
<∼ 500 MeV unlikely,or non-chiral
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.
university-logo
Intro Tc CEP Concl.
Backup: Gavai & Gupta’s critical point
“We find the radius of convergence of the series at varioustemperatures, and bound the location of the QCD critical point to beTE/Tc ≈ 0.94 and µE/T < 0.6”
• Arbitrariness in definition of “effective radius of convergence”
µETE
= limn→∞
√∣∣∣∣
c2n
c2n+2
∣∣∣∣(TE) versus
χq
T 2 =∞
∑n=1
2n(2n−1) c2n
( µT
)2n−2
→ µETE
= limn→∞
√∣∣∣∣
2n(2n−1)c2n
(2n +2)(2n +1)c2n+2
∣∣∣∣
n = 1 → factor 1/√
6
• Criterion for TE
• Consistency of results with toy model having no critical point
• Endrodi, Fodor & Katz:peaks of all susceptibilities decrease as µ increases
Ph. de Forcrand EMMI 2009, St. Goar Crit. Pt.