No Access

Fakulta jaderná a fyzikálně inženýrská, České vysoké učení technické v Praze, Břehová 7, 11519 Praha 1, Czech Republic

Fakulta prírodných vied, Univerzita Mateja Bela, Tajovského 40, 97401 Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X25420060Cited by:0 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Extensions of the blast-wave model for the description of noncentral collisions are reviewed and the physics behind them is explained and illustrated. It is shown how the second-order anisotropy in expansion velocity together with the anisotropy in the shape or the density profile of the fireball determine the elliptic flow of the produced hadrons. Ambiguities and limitations of the models are discussed and different models are compared among themselves and with example data. It is concluded that model results should always be compared to $v_{2} (p_{t})$ $v_{2} (p_{t})$ from several identified species in order to receive meaningful results about the freeze-out stage of the fireball and that even such a comparison may not be conclusive as the models may not be able to reproduce all relevant data.

Minireview for the Zimányi School volume.

Keywords:

You currently do not have access to the full text article.
Recommend the journal to your library today!

References

1. P. Danielewicz and G. Odyniec , Phys. Lett. B 157, 146 (1985). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
2. J. Y. Ollitrault , Phys. Rev. D 46, 229 (1992). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
3. S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang , Z. Phys. C 70, 665 (1996). Crossref, Google Scholar
4. P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. Heinz, P. V. Ruuskanen and S. A. Voloshin , Phys. Lett. B 503, 58 (2001). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
5. P. J. Siemens and J. O. Rasmussen , Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 880 (1979). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
6. E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank and U. Heinz , Phys. Rev. C 48, 2462 (1993). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
7. T. Csörgő and B. Lörstad , Phys. Rev. C 54, 1390 (1996). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
8. B. Tomášik, U. A. Wiedemann and U. W. Heinz , Acta Phys. Hung. A 17, 105 (2003). Crossref, Google Scholar
9. F. Retière and M. A. Lisa , Phys. Rev. C 70, 044907 (2004). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
10. B. Tomášik , Acta Phys. Polon. B 36, 2087 (2005). Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
11. J. Cimerman, B. Tomášik, M. Csanád and S. Lökös , Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 161 (2017). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
12. F. Cooper and G. Frye , Phys. Rev. D 10, 186 (1974). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
13. J. D. Bjorken , Phys. Rev. D 27, 140 (1983). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
14. ALICE ( D. Adamová et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 222301 (2017). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
15. STAR ( C. Adler et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 182301 (2001). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
16. STAR ( J. Adams et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 012301 (2004). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
17. STAR ( J. Adams et al.), Phys. Rev. C 71, 044906 (2005). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. PHENIX ( A. Adare et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 222301 (2014). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
19. PHENIX ( A. Adare et al.), Phys. Rev. C 92, 034914 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. STAR ( L. Adamczyk et al.), Phys. Rev. C 92, 014904 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
21. I. Melo and B. Tomášik , J. Phys. G 47, 045107 (2020). Crossref, Google Scholar
22. ALICE ( B. Abelev et al.), Phys. Rev. C 88, 044910 (2013). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
23. R. Vozábová and B. Tomášik , Phys. Rev. C 109, 064908 (2024). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
24. M. McNelis and U. Heinz , Phys. Rev. C 103, 064903 (2021). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar