toward an improved determination of tc with 2+1 flavors of asqtad fermions
DESCRIPTION
Toward an Improved Determination of Tc with 2+1 Flavors of Asqtad Fermions. C. DeTar University of Utah The HotQCD Collaboration July 30, 2007. T. Battacharya (LANL) M. Cheng (Columbia) N. Christ (Columbia) C. DeTar (Utah) S. Gottlieb (Indiana) R. Gupta (LANL) U. Heller (APS) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Toward an Improved Determination of Tc with 2+1 Flavors of Asqtad Fermions
C. DeTar
University of Utah
The HotQCD Collaboration
July 30, 2007
HotQCD Collaboration
• T. Battacharya (LANL)
• M. Cheng (Columbia)
• N. Christ (Columbia)
• C. DeTar (Utah)
• S. Gottlieb (Indiana)
• R. Gupta (LANL)
• U. Heller (APS)
• K. Huebner (BNL)
• C. Jung (BNL)
• F. Karsch (BNL/Bielefeld)
• E. Laermann (Bielefeld)
• L. Levkova (Utah)
• T. Luu (LLNL)
• R. Mawhinney (Columbia)
• P. Petreczky (BNL)
• D. Renfrew (Columbia)
• C. Schmidt (BNL)
• R. Soltz (LLNL)
• W. Soeldner (BNL)
• R. Sugar (UCSB)
• D. Toussaint (Arizona)
• P. Vranas (LLNL)
Physics Goals
• Accurate determination of Tc– Energy density ~ T^4 sensitive to errors in T
• Equation of State (zero and nonzero density)– Needed for modeling heavy ion collisions.
• Spectral Functions
• Spatial and temporal correlators versus T
• Transport coefficients of the quark gluon plasma
Data Sample
• Algorithm:– Asqtad 2+1 flavor RHMC
• Ensembles– Line of constant physics: m_l/m_s = 0.1– 32^3 x 8 ~12000 trajectories each– 13 beta values along line of constant physics– 32^4 couple hundred trajectories for now
• I will be focusing on Asqtad results for Nt = 8, m_l/m_s = 0.1 throughout this talk.
How to Measure Tc
• “Chiral” phenomena Tchiral
– Peaks in chiral susceptibilities
– Singular at critical point (no ambiguity there)
• “Deconfinement” phenomena Tdeconf
– Inflection points in ReP, energy density vs T
– May be linked at chiral critical point
• How large are the differences in these measures at the physical quark mass?– Aoki et al (Wuppertal – Budapest) Phys Lett B 643:46 (2006)
Sources of Error
• Algorithm R vs RHMC
• Finite volume
• Peak or inflection point determination
• Statistics (sample size)
• Extrapolation to physical quark mass and continuum
• Scale error
Asqtad R vs RHMC
Differences are very small
Chiral susceptibilities
Connected Chiral Susceptibility
Finite size effect increases values at low T
Disconnected chiral susceptibility
Larger volume is important
Singlet chiral susceptibility
Finite size effect tends to decrease Tc slightly
16^3: 184(2)MeV
32^3: 186(2)
Statistical error for this fit model only! Systematic errors to be determined.
Renormalized singlet susceptibility (Wuppertal-Budapest)
Small difference in peak position
Quark number susceptibilities
Strange quark number susceptibility
It is more difficult to locate an inflection point than a peak.
Polyakov Loop
Unrenormalized
Summary of Tc Determination (Nt=8, 0.1ms)
• All methods give answers in the range 180-195 MeV
• “Chiral” measures tend to give a bit lower Tc than “deconfining” measures
Error budget beyond Nt = 8, 0.1ms
• Extrapolation to physical masses and
continuum depends on extrapolation model:
Estimated error: a few MeV from previous Asqtad studies
• Scale error in determination of lattice spacing (theorists can use r1 Tc)
Estimated error: 4 MeV
Error budget conclusions
• R vs RHMC: insignificant
• Finite size: couple MeV
• Peak or inflection point determination: couple to several MeV
• Statistics (to be determined)
• Extrapolation (to be determined)
• Scale (few MeV)
To be Done
• Complete Nt=8 simulations• Finish analysis of all the variables • Combine Nt=4,6,8 calculations• Extract transition temperature at which bulk
quantities show largest fluctuations• Is there a difference in temperature for
chiral and deconfinement phenomena at the physical quark mass?