DOCSLIB.ORG

Discovery of Antiproton

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discovery of Antiproton Discovery of antiproton Antonia Mos I chose the article “Observation of Antiprotons” because, during the course, I was very intersted in the lectures about the first hadron’s discov- eries, and particularly in positron detection. Although this experiment was rather different from Andersson’s one, I thought that it was the natural con- tinuation of that discovery. 1 Introduction Antiprotons are, with positrons, some of the first antiparticles discovered. The existence of positrons was postulated as a consequence of Dirac equa- tion, formulated in 1928, that predicted another particle identical to the electron, except that the charge would be positive. Afterwards, the equa- tion was modified to describe the proton (and other particles), but before physicists obtained the experimental proof of antiproton’s exsistence, they were not sure that a proton was a Dirac particle in the same sense as is the electron. The creation of the antiproton would require a lot of energy, and until 1950’ there weren’t particle accelerators with enough power to study this problem in laboratory. Besides, experimental events recorded in cosmic ray investigation weren’t sufficient to provide antiproton existence. In 1954 was constructed one of the first synchrotrons, the Bevatron in Berkeley, and the experimental demonstration of the existence of antiprotons was one of the objects considered in his planning. The antiproton was firstly observed in 1955 in Berkeley, by Owen Cham- berlain, Emilio Segr`e, Clyde Wiegand and Thomas Ypsilantis (for this dis- cover Chamberlain and Segr`ewon the 1959 Nobel Prize in Physics). They grounded the experiment also on the informations obtained by the tests with cosmic rays. 1 2 The Apparatus The aim was producing and detecting antiprotons by establishing the mass of negative particles originating at the Bevatron target. To determinate it, they chose to measure the particles’ momentum and velocity. They planned an apparatus as follows: the proton beam impinged on a copper target, then it described an orbit, going across several counters. It passed through a first magnet M1, a quadrupole focusing magnet Q1, which brought the particles to a scintillation counter S1, then it went through another quadrupole focusing magnet Q2, a second magnet M2, a second scintillation counter S2, a Cerenkovˇ counter C1 and the special Cerenkovˇ counter C2 and, finally, a third scintillation counter S3. Let’s examine more carefully the elements of the apparatus. Magnets M1 and M2 were destined to deflect the proton beam (in this experiment, the particles were deflected three times: through an angle of 21◦ by the field of the Bevatron after the impact with the target, 32◦ by M1 and 34◦ by M2). Quadrupole focusing magnets Q1 and Q2 were used to focus the beam. They consisted of three consecutive quadrupole magnets: every quadrupole 2 magnet consisted of four magnets with alternatively reversed pole. S1 and S2 were plastic scintillation counters and measured ionizing radi- ation. Because they could provide informations very quickly, they were used to signal passage of particles. Cerenkovˇ counters were used for particle identification. These counters are based on transition radiation, that are emitted by particles travelling in a medium with speeds faster than the speed of light. The light emitted by excited atoms forms a wavefront at a fixed angle with respect to the trajectory. If some other property can be measured in addition to the Cerenkovˇ intensity, the particle can be identified. In particular, it is possible to discriminate between two particles of the same momentum and different masses, because that angle provides a direct measurement of the velocity of each particle. C1 is a common Cerenkovˇ counter, C2 has a special design, and counts only particles in a fixed velocity interval. In C2, such as in C1, Cerenkovˇ light was emitted at different angles for particles of different velocity. This angle continued to be determinated by velocity also after the light passed out of Cerenkovˇ radiator. A cylindrical mirror was arranged to reflect only light emitted in the right direction. This light was then refocused within a small region where it could be detected by a photomultiplier. Using a system of plane mirrors, particles with the correct velocity were counted, while the beam didn’t traverse the photomultiplier. C2 was very similar to the Lindenbaum and Pevsner counter: in it, “a thin cell of the material to be used for a Cerenkovˇ radiator was enclosed with a specularly reflecting envelope and was viewed from the two sides by photomultiplier tubes” (quoting [3]). 3 3 The experiment An important difference between this experiment and the other experiments made with the same target in the same period is that this one used the quadrupole focusing magnets. This idea was suggested by Oreste Piccioni, who realized that a greater number of useful particles would pass through the system, if they employed this magnets. 3.1 First method Since the antiprotons must be selected from a pions’ background, it was necessary to measure the velocity by more than one method. The first method for determinating the velocity of the particles was by observing the time of flight between scintillation counters S1 and S2. They were separated by 40 ft (≈ 12, 19 m), so mesons of momentum 1, 19 GeV that had β = 0, 99 covered the distance in 40 millimicroseconds, while proton mass particles of the same momentum with β = 0, 78 needed 51 millimicroseconds. 3.2 Second method The second method was based on the properties of C1 and C2: the counter C1 detected all charged particles for which β > 0, 79, while C2 counted only particles in the velocity interval 0, 75 < β < 0, 78. When arrived at S2, a proton mass particle of momentum 1, 196 GeV/c had β = 0, 78, while, after traversing S2, C1 and C2, velocity was reduced to β = 0, 765. These values were such that the particle was counted in the second Cerenkovˇ counter, but not in the first. After this second measurement, the counter S3 verified that the particle traversed C2 along the axis, with a no large-angle scattering. Notice that the second measure of velocity was completely indipendent by the first. 3.3 Importance of C1 Both these methods could accidentally count mesons as antiprotons. In the first case, coincident counts in S1 and S2 meant that a particle of the beam covered the distance in approximately 51 millimicroseconds. But, if a single meson would be completely excluded (because it’s too fast), however acci- dental coincidences of S1 and S2 might provoke the count of some mesons. Also in measuring by Cerenkovˇ counter C2 could be made some mistakes: in fact meson momentum decreased if it suffered a nuclear scattering inside 4 the counter, and, if it happened, the meson could be counted in C2. The coincidence of this two errors would alter the count, but the problem had been eliminated by introducing the counter C1, which indicated if a particle moved too fast to be an antiproton. Counter C1 was made of a material whose index of refraction was such that antiprotons would produce no radiations in it. However, faster particles, such as mesons and electrons, would give rise to a pulse at the output of this counter. In that case, the event would be rejected also if S1 and S2 (and C2) counted it. 3.4 Test of the apparatus A test of the apparatus was obtained by changing the position of the target and inverting the magnetic fields in M1, M2, Q1 and Q2: in this way, the apparatus would count positive protons. Thanks to this check, Segr`e, Cham- berlain, Wiegand and Ypsilantis discovered that there was an error in their first calibration of the apparatus: they had set it for a mass different from the proton one and so, inverting the fields, they founded very few protons. After the alignment of apparatus was corrected, protons were easily observed and, when the magnetic fields were again reversed, they started to find possible antiproton events. 3.5 Mass measurement A test to verify that the apparatus was sensitive to the mass of particles was made by tuning the system to a mass different from the proton mass, but in the region of the proton mass. The magnetic field values of M1, M2, Q1 and Q2 were modified, but the velocity selection was left unchanged: in this way, the apparatus was set for particles of a different mass, and, if the system was sensitive to the mass, proton-mass particles would not be registered. The result of this check was the one that the team expected, and the observations showed the existence of a peak of intensity at the proton mass. 5 This test permitted to say that the new particle had mass within 5 percent of that of the proton and to confirm the idea that it was the antiproton. 3.6 Lowering energy Another test was made for measuring the ratio of antiprotons to mesons emitted in the forward direction from the target as a function of Bevatron energy. Lowering the energy, the team verified that the antiprotons disap- peared when the energy was sufficiently low. In fact, they observed that, at 6, 2GeV , antiprotons appeared to the ex- tent of one in 44000 pions (but, because of the decay of pions, this corre- sponded to one in 62000, at the target). 6 They didn’t observe antiprotons production at the lowest energy: later, calculations confirmed this result and showed that a few antiprotons should be produced at 5GeV . 4 Possible errors The mistakes caused by an erroneous apparatus’ tuning have already been considered: anyway, they were solved from the beginning.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interactions of Antiprotons with Atoms and Molecules
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln US Department of Energy Publications U.S. Department of Energy 1988 INTERACTIONS OF ANTIPROTONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES Mitio Inokuti Argonne National Laboratory Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdoepub Part of the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons Inokuti, Mitio, "INTERACTIONS OF ANTIPROTONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES" (1988). US Department of Energy Publications. 89. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdoepub/89 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Energy at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Department of Energy Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. /'Iud Tracks Radial. Meas., Vol. 16, No. 2/3, pp. 115-123, 1989 0735-245X/89 $3.00 + 0.00 Inl. J. Radial. Appl .. Ins/rum., Part D Pergamon Press pic printed in Great Bntam INTERACTIONS OF ANTIPROTONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES* Mmo INOKUTI Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, U.S.A. (Received 14 November 1988) Abstract-Antiproton beams of relatively low energies (below hundreds of MeV) have recently become available. The present article discusses the significance of those beams in the contexts of radiation physics and of atomic and molecular physics. Studies on individual collisions of antiprotons with atoms and molecules are valuable for a better understanding of collisions of protons or electrons, a subject with many applications. An antiproton is unique as' a stable, negative heavy particle without electronic structure, and it provides an excellent opportunity to study atomic collision theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering Alvin Tollestrup: 1924-2020 – CERN Courier
    3/26/2020 Remembering Alvin Tollestrup: 1924-2020 – CERN Courier PEOPLE | NEWS Remembering Alvin Tollestrup: 1924-2020 6 March 2020 Alvin Tollestrup, who passed away on 9 February at the age of 95, was a visionary. When I joined his group at Caltech in the summer of 1960, experiments in particle physics at universities were performed at accelerators located on campus. Alvin had helped build Caltech’s electron synchrotron, the highest energy photon-producing accelerator at the time. But he thought more exciting physics could be performed elsewhere, and managed to get approval to run an experiment at Berkeley Lab’s Bevatron to measure a rare decay mode of the K+ meson. This was the rst time an outsider was allowed to access Berkeley’s machine, much to the consternation of Luis Alvarez and other university faculty. When I joined Alvin’s group he asked a postdoc, Ricardo Gomez, and me to design, build and test https://cerncourier.com/a/remembering-alvin-tollestrup-1924-2020/ 1/5 3/26/2020 Remembering Alvin Tollestrup: 1924-2020 – CERN Courier Machine maestro – Alvin Tollestrup led the pioneering a new type of particle detector called a spark work of designing and testing the superconducting magnets for the Tevatron, the rst large-scale chamber. He gave us a paper by two Japanese application of superconductivity. Credit: Fermilab authors on “A new type of particle detector: the discharge chamber”, not what he wanted, but a place to start. In retrospect it was remarkable that Alvin was willing to risk the success of his experiment on the creation of new technology.
    [Show full text]
  • ANTIPROTON and NEUTRINO PRODUCTION ACCELERATOR TIMELINE ISSUES Dave Mcginnis August 28, 2005
    ANTIPROTON AND NEUTRINO PRODUCTION ACCELERATOR TIMELINE ISSUES Dave McGinnis August 28, 2005 INTRODUCTION Most of the accelerator operating period is devoted to making antiprotons for the Collider program and accelerating protons for the NUMI program. While stacking antiprotons, the same Main Injector 120 GeV acceleration cycle is used to accelerate protons bound for the antiproton production target and protons bound for the NUMI neutrino production target. This is designated as Mixed-Mode operations. The minimum cycle time is limited by the time it takes to fill the Main Injector with two Booster batches for antiproton production and five Booster batches for neutrino production (7 x 0.067 seconds) and the Main Injector ramp rate (~ 1.5 seconds). As the antiproton stack size grows, the Accumulator stochastic cooling systems slow down which requires the cycle time to be lengthened. The lengthening of the cycle time unfortunately reduces the NUMI neutrino flux. This paper will use a simple antiproton stacking model to explore some of the tradeoffs between antiproton stacking and neutrino production. ACCUMULATOR STACKTAIL SYSTEM After the target, antiprotons are injected into the Debuncher ring where they undergo a bunch rotation and are stochastically pre-cooled for injection into the Accumulator. A fresh beam pulse injected into the Accumulator from the Debuncher is merged with previous beam pulses with the Accumulator StackTail system. This system cools and decelerates the antiprotons until the antiprotons are captured by the core cooling systems as shown in Figure 1. The antiproton flux through the Stacktail system is described by the Fokker –Plank equation ∂ψ ∂φ = − (1) ∂t ∂E where φ the flux of particles passing through the energy E and ψ is the particle density of the beam at energy E.
    [Show full text]
  • ANTIMATTER a Review of Its Role in the Universe and Its Applications
    A review of its role in the ANTIMATTER universe and its applications THE DISCOVERY OF NATURE’S SYMMETRIES ntimatter plays an intrinsic role in our Aunderstanding of the subatomic world THE UNIVERSE THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS C.D. Anderson, Anderson, Emilio VisualSegrè Archives C.D. The beginning of the 20th century or vice versa, it absorbed or emitted saw a cascade of brilliant insights into quanta of electromagnetic radiation the nature of matter and energy. The of definite energy, giving rise to a first was Max Planck’s realisation that characteristic spectrum of bright or energy (in the form of electromagnetic dark lines at specific wavelengths. radiation i.e. light) had discrete values The Austrian physicist, Erwin – it was quantised. The second was Schrödinger laid down a more precise that energy and mass were equivalent, mathematical formulation of this as described by Einstein’s special behaviour based on wave theory and theory of relativity and his iconic probability – quantum mechanics. The first image of a positron track found in cosmic rays equation, E = mc2, where c is the The Schrödinger wave equation could speed of light in a vacuum; the theory predict the spectrum of the simplest or positron; when an electron also predicted that objects behave atom, hydrogen, which consists of met a positron, they would annihilate somewhat differently when moving a single electron orbiting a positive according to Einstein’s equation, proton. However, the spectrum generating two gamma rays in the featured additional lines that were not process. The concept of antimatter explained. In 1928, the British physicist was born.
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerator Disaster Scenarios, the Unabomber, and Scientific Risks
    Accelerator Disaster Scenarios, the Unabomber, and Scientific Risks Joseph I. Kapusta∗ Abstract The possibility that experiments at high-energy accelerators could create new forms of matter that would ultimately destroy the Earth has been considered several times in the past quarter century. One consequence of the earliest of these disaster scenarios was that the authors of a 1993 article in Physics Today who reviewed the experi- ments that had been carried out at the Bevalac at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory were placed on the FBI's Unabomber watch list. Later, concerns that experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory might create mini black holes or nuggets of stable strange quark matter resulted in a flurry of articles in the popular press. I discuss this history, as well as Richard A. Pos- ner's provocative analysis and recommendations on how to deal with such scientific risks. I conclude that better communication between scientists and nonscientists would serve to assuage unreasonable fears and focus attention on truly serious potential threats to humankind. Key words: Wladek Swiatecki; Subal Das Gupta; Gary D. Westfall; Theodore J. Kaczynski; Frank Wilczek; John Marburger III; Richard A. Posner; Be- valac; Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC); Large Hadron Collider (LHC); Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; CERN; Unabomber; Federal Bureau of Investigation; nuclear physics; accel- erators; abnormal nuclear matter; density isomer; black hole; strange quark matter; scientific risks. arXiv:0804.4806v1 [physics.hist-ph] 30 Apr 2008 ∗Joseph I. Kapusta received his Ph.D. degree at the University of California at Berkeley in 1978 and has been on the faculty of the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Minnesota since 1982.
    [Show full text]
  • Antiproton–Proton Scattering Experiments with Polarization ( Collaboration) PAX Abstract
    Technical Proposal for Antiproton–Proton Scattering Experiments with Polarization ( Collaboration) PAX arXiv:hep-ex/0505054v1 17 May 2005 J¨ulich, May 2005 2 Technical Proposal for PAX Frontmatter 3 Technical Proposal for Antiproton–Proton Scattering Experiments with Polarization ( Collaboration) PAX Abstract Polarized antiprotons, produced by spin filtering with an internal polarized gas target, provide access to a wealth of single– and double–spin observables, thereby opening a new window to physics uniquely accessible at the HESR. This includes a first measurement of the transversity distribution of the valence quarks in the proton, a test of the predicted opposite sign of the Sivers–function, related to the quark dis- tribution inside a transversely polarized nucleon, in Drell–Yan (DY) as compared to semi–inclusive DIS, and a first measurement of the moduli and the relative phase of the time–like electric and magnetic form factors GE,M of the proton. In polarized and unpolarized pp¯ elastic scattering, open questions like the contribution from the odd charge–symmetry Landshoff–mechanism at large t and spin–effects in the extraction | | of the forward scattering amplitude at low t can be addressed. The proposed de- | | tector consists of a large–angle apparatus optimized for the detection of DY electron pairs and a forward dipole spectrometer with excellent particle identification. The design and performance of the new components, required for the polarized antiproton program, are outlined. A low–energy Antiproton Polarizer Ring (APR) yields an antiproton beam polarization of Pp¯ = 0.3 to 0.4 after about two beam life times, which is of the order of 5–10 h.
    [Show full text]
  • 10.8 News 612 Mh
    NEWS NATURE|Vol 442|10 August 2006 Views collide over fate of accelerator Its parts have been dismembered, its roof is leaking, and a wall is missing. Now activists and scientists are squabbling over whether to com- pletely raze the Bevatron — one of the most important particle accelerators ever built. The remains of the Bevatron, which was decommissioned more than a decade ago, take up prime real estate on the Lawrence Berkeley LAB. NATL BERKELEY LAWRENCE National Laboratory’s campus in Berkeley, Cali- fornia. Scientists at the lab want to tear it down to make way for fresh projects. But locals, many of whom oppose the demolition because of con- cerns about the possible release of contaminants, say they want to see it made into a museum. On 3 August, the city council’s Landmarks and Preservation Commission dealt a blow to those wanting landmark status for the accelera- tor by voting to recognize the Bevatron’s legacy without protecting the building. Nevertheless, landmark advocates have vowed to continue fighting. “It’s truly a landmark, a very unique building,” says Mark Divided: physicists up. Community members have expressed fears McDonald, who sits on the hope to reclaim the that razing the Bevatron would involve moving City of Berkeley’s Peace and space but local groups large amounts of loose asbestos through the city Justice Commission. “Some- want landmark status of Berkeley. Environmentalists also fear that body called it the world’s for the Bevatron. lead and other contaminants from the build- largest yurt.” The Bevatron, ing site could escape into the water table.
    [Show full text]
  • New Trends in the Investigation of Antiproton-Nucleus Annihilation
    сообщения объединенного института ядерных исследований дубна E15-90-t50 A.M. Rozhdestvenskyк$Г/ ММ..< С.Sapozhnikov NEW TRENDS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF ANTIPROTON-NUCLEUS ANNIHILATION 1990 © Объединенный институт ядерных исследований Дубна, 1990 1. INTRODUCTION Experiments at LEAR have provided valuable information on the antiproton-nucleus interaction at low energies, T < 200 MeV (see, reviews [1,2]). Such gross features of the pA interaction as the energy dependence of cross sections, multiplicity distributions of annihilation mesons, angular and momentum spectra of outgoing particles etc. are known nov. This information provides a reference frame for future tasks to be carried out at high intensity hadron facilities such as the KAON factory or SUPERLEAR-type machines. In high energy antiproton-nucleus physics one can single out at least two types of j.rc|blems . The first involves investigation of the mechanisms of antiproton interaction with nuclei. In a certain sense it represents a repetition of the program performed with protons and pions. Such experiments are needed for a better understanding of which phenomena are to be regarded as conventional. Problems of the second type include the investigation of specific antiproton-nucleus annihilation phenomena. How does a nucleus react to a near 2 GeV energy release occurring in a small volume on the surface or inside the nucleus? How strong is the final state interaction of annihilation mesons? Is annihilation on few-nucleon clusters possible? Does the annihilation probability on a bound nucleon differ from the annihilation probability on a free nucleon? All these problems represent examples of "pure" antiproton physics. We believe it is these aspects of antiproton-nucleus physics that will become more and more important in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • ELEMENTARY PARTICLES in PHYSICS 1 Elementary Particles in Physics S
    ELEMENTARY PARTICLES IN PHYSICS 1 Elementary Particles in Physics S. Gasiorowicz and P. Langacker Elementary-particle physics deals with the fundamental constituents of mat- ter and their interactions. In the past several decades an enormous amount of experimental information has been accumulated, and many patterns and sys- tematic features have been observed. Highly successful mathematical theories of the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions have been devised and tested. These theories, which are collectively known as the standard model, are almost certainly the correct description of Nature, to first approximation, down to a distance scale 1/1000th the size of the atomic nucleus. There are also spec- ulative but encouraging developments in the attempt to unify these interactions into a simple underlying framework, and even to incorporate quantum gravity in a parameter-free “theory of everything.” In this article we shall attempt to highlight the ways in which information has been organized, and to sketch the outlines of the standard model and its possible extensions. Classification of Particles The particles that have been identified in high-energy experiments fall into dis- tinct classes. There are the leptons (see Electron, Leptons, Neutrino, Muonium), 1 all of which have spin 2 . They may be charged or neutral. The charged lep- tons have electromagnetic as well as weak interactions; the neutral ones only interact weakly. There are three well-defined lepton pairs, the electron (e−) and − the electron neutrino (νe), the muon (µ ) and the muon neutrino (νµ), and the (much heavier) charged lepton, the tau (τ), and its tau neutrino (ντ ). These particles all have antiparticles, in accordance with the predictions of relativistic quantum mechanics (see CPT Theorem).
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Spectroscopy ...I
    SYMPOSIUM ON THE LAWRENCE RADIATION LABORATORY BY INVITATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE AUTUMN MEETING Read before the Academy, November 8, 1958 Chairman, EDWIN L. MCMILLAN CONTENTS THE BEVATRON .................................. Edward J. Lofgren 451 FORCES BETWEEN NUCLEONS AND ANTINUCLEONS ...... Geoffrey F. Chewt 456 NUCLEAR SPECTROSCOPY .................................I . Perlman 461 RECENT WORK WITH THE TRANSURANIUM ELEMENTS ... Glenn T. Seaborg 471 THE BEVA TRON BY EDWARD J. LOFGREN LAWRENCE RADIATION LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Twenty-eight years ago, in the opening lines of a paper presented at a meeting of this academy, Prof. Lawrence said, "Very little is known about nuclear prop- erties of atoms, because of the difficulty inherent in excitation of nuclear transitions in the laboratory. The study of the nucleus would be greatly facilitated by the development of a source of high-speed protons having kinetic energy of about 1 million volt-electrons."' He went on to explain the idea of the cyclotron and the imminent possibility of producing 1-million-electron-volt protons with apparatus 10 cm in radius and having a 15,000-gauss magnetic field. Today a great deal is known about the nuclear properties of atoms, and much of this information came from the cyclotrons and related types of accelerators which stem directly from this early work of Prof. Lawrence. The Bevatron is one of the largest of this group of accelerators, and my purpose is to tell you what it is and how it works. Without apparent limit it seems that there is more and more to learn about nuclear particles. The experimental program of the Bevatron is one of the most important in this field, and in the following talk Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Moment of Azimuthal Anisotropy in Nuclear Collisions From
    The first moment of azimuthal anisotropy in nuclear collisions from AGS to LHC energies Subhash Singha, Prashanth Shanmuganathan and Declan Keane Department of Physics, Kent State University, Ohio 44242, USA (Dated: November 6, 2018) We review topics related to the first moment of azimuthal anisotropy (v1), commonly known as directed flow, focusing on both charged particles and identified particles from heavy-ion collisions. Beam energies from the highest available, at the CERN LHC, down to projectile kinetic energies per nucleon of a few GeV per nucleon, as studied in experiments at the Brookhaven AGS, fall within our scope. We focus on experimental measurements and on theoretical work where direct comparisons with experiment have been emphasized. The physics addressed or potentially addressed by this review topic includes the study of Quark Gluon Plasma, and more generally, investigation of the Quantum Chromodynamics phase diagram and the equation of state describing the accessible phases. arXiv:1610.00646v1 [nucl-ex] 3 Oct 2016 2 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of relativistic nuclear collision experiments is the creation and study of nuclear matter at high energy densities. Experiments have established a new form of strongly-interacting matter, called Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) [1{7]. Collective motion of the particles emitted from such collisions is of special interest because it is sensitive to the equation of state in the early stages of the reaction [8{10]. Directed flow was the first type of collective motion identified among the fragments from nuclear collisions [11{13], and in current analyses, is characterized by the first harmonic coefficient in the Fourier expansion of the azimuthal distribution of the emitted particles with respect to each event's reaction plane azimuth (Ψ) [14{16]: v1 = hcos(φ − Ψ)i; (1) where φ is the azimuth of a charged particle, or more often, the azimuth of a particular particle species, and the angle brackets denote averaging over all such particles in all events.
    [Show full text]
  • Emilio Segrè
    EMILIO G. SEGRÈ Properties of antinucleons Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1959 I must begin by thanking the Swedish Academy for the great honor they have bestowed on me. The names of the previous recipients of the Nobel Award, while lending great prestige to the Award, make me feel humble and dubious about my merits to join the company. However, I can only repeat my gratitude and think that my constant devotion to science may have something to do with the choice, apart from any success, in which there is perforce an element of luck. At the onset I must also mention the names of two people who have had, in different ways, a very great influence upon all my work. Of Enrico Fermi I would only say, quoting Dante as he himself might have done, Tu se’ lo mio maestro e il mio autore; Tu se’ solo colui da cui io tolsi Lo bello stilo che mi ha fatto onore. Thou art my master and my author; thou alone art he from whom I took the good style that hath done me honor. I learned from him not only a good part of the physics I know, but above all an attitude towards science which has affected all my work. Ernest Or- lando Lawrence created the instruments with which most of my work was done. Although I belong scientifically to a different tradition and outlook, it was only through the instruments developed at his instigation and under his leadership that most of my own researches became possible. This is espe- cially true for the last one: the antiproton.
    [Show full text]