skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Is HBT Really Puzzling?

Abstract

Two-particle correlations from RHIC have provided a surprising snapshot of the final state at RHIC. In this talk I discuss the nature of the HBT puzzle and attempt to delineate several factors which might ultimately resolve the issue.

Authors:
;  [1]
  1. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20800116
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: AIP Conference Proceedings; Journal Volume: 828; Journal Issue: 1; Conference: 35. internationals symposium on multiparticle dynamics; Workshop on particle correlations and femtoscopy, Kromeriz (Czech Republic), 9-17 Aug 2005; Other Information: DOI: 10.1063/1.2197451; (c) 2006 American Institute of Physics; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS; BROOKHAVEN RHIC; CORRELATIONS; HEAVY ION REACTIONS; HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL; MULTIPLE PRODUCTION

Citation Formats

Pratt, Scott, and Schindel, Daniel. Is HBT Really Puzzling?. United States: N. p., 2006. Web. doi:10.1063/1.2197451.
Pratt, Scott, & Schindel, Daniel. Is HBT Really Puzzling?. United States. doi:10.1063/1.2197451.
Pratt, Scott, and Schindel, Daniel. Tue . "Is HBT Really Puzzling?". United States. doi:10.1063/1.2197451.
@article{osti_20800116,
title = {Is HBT Really Puzzling?},
author = {Pratt, Scott and Schindel, Daniel},
abstractNote = {Two-particle correlations from RHIC have provided a surprising snapshot of the final state at RHIC. In this talk I discuss the nature of the HBT puzzle and attempt to delineate several factors which might ultimately resolve the issue.},
doi = {10.1063/1.2197451},
journal = {AIP Conference Proceedings},
number = 1,
volume = 828,
place = {United States},
year = {Tue Apr 11 00:00:00 EDT 2006},
month = {Tue Apr 11 00:00:00 EDT 2006}
}
  • Attempts to characterize sharp declines in productivity since 1974 cannot use the factors of the 1968--1974 years, but can be examined by using national income per person employed (NIPPE). Although the 1974--1975 recession coincided with the productivity decline along with the effects of weather, work stoppages, and the effect of changes in employed labor and capital use in response to demand, other factors are felt to be significant. The decline is attributed to governmental regulations related to controlling pollution and protecting the health and safety of employees, rising crime, shorter working hours, shifts in the age-sex characteristics of workers, amore » reduced growth of fixed capital and inventories per worker, resource reallocation, and slower market growth. A lack of advances in knowledge, energy conservation programs, negative work attitudes, and other popular allegations are not felt to adequately explain the sharp decline.« less
  • The decline in US productivity since 1974 does not fit the rationale given the steady decline from its peak in the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. A quantitative growth analysis using output per person in the nonresidential business sector indicates an extended period of low productivity. Labor changes in national income per person employed (NIPPE) from 1948 to 1973 reflect an increase in educational level and demographic changes in the work force. Other forces at work during that period were improvements in resource allocation and the business environment and technological advances. The sudden change after 1973 is blamed on a widemore » range of developments affecting technological improvements, govenment regulation and taxation, and socio-economic factors, one of which offers an adequate explanation by itself. That the productivity decline affects nearly all industries and industrial countries indicates that the true causes are neither understood nor likely to be changed for some time. (DCK)« less
  • Nucleons are building blocks of visible matter, and are responsible for more than 99% of the visible mass in the universe despite the fact that the discovery of the Higgs boson is almost irrelevant to the origin of the proton mass. While major progress has been made in the last two decades in understanding the proton spin puzzle discovered in the late 1980s by the European Muon Collaboration, a new proton puzzle emerged in the last several years concerning the proton charge radius, which is the charge weighted size of the proton. In this paper we will review the latestmore » situation concerning the proton charge radius, mass and spin, and discuss upcoming new experiments addressing these puzzles, as well as implications for new physics.« less