Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Incomplete electromagnetic response of hot QCD matter

Zeyan Wang1, Jiaxing Zhao1, Carsten Greiner2, Zhe Xu1, and Pengfei Zhuang1

  • 1Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
  • 2Institut für Theoretische Physik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Max-von-Laue-Strasse 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Phys. Rev. C 105, L041901 – Published 27 April, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L041901

Abstract

The electromagnetic response of hot QCD matter to decaying external magnetic fields is investigated. We examine the validity of Ohm's law and find that the induced electric current increases from zero and relaxes towards the value from Ohm's law. The relaxation time is larger than the lifetime of the external magnetic field for the QCD matter in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The lower-than-expected electric current significantly suppresses the induced magnetic field and makes the electromagnetic response incomplete. We demonstrate the incomplete electromagnetic response of hot QCD matter by calculations employing the parton transport model combined with the solution of Maxwell's equations. Our results show a strong suppression by two orders of magnitude in the magnetic field relative to calculations assuming the validity of Ohm's law. This may undermine experimental efforts to measure magnetic-field-related effects in heavy-ion collisions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

synopsis

Ohm’s Law Violated in Heavy-Ion Collisions

Published 27 April, 2022

The magnetic field generated in a high-energy collision of heavy ions might be weaker than previously thought, hindering the experimental search for field-related effects.

See more in Physics

Article Text

References (61)

  1. V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 5925 (2009).
  2. V. Voronyuk, V. D. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, V. P. Konchakovski, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83, 054911 (2011).
  3. W. T. Deng and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044907 (2012).
  4. K. Tuchin, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013, 490495 (2013).
  5. J. O. Andersen, W. R. Naylor, and A. Tranberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 025001 (2016).
  6. D. E. Kharzeev, K. Landsteiner, A. Schmitt, and H. U. Yee, Lect. Notes Phys. 871, 1 (2013).
  7. G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, A. Schafer, and K. K. Szabo, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2012) 044.
  8. G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and A. Schafer, Phys. Rev. D 86, 071502(R) (2012).
  9. F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, and T. G. Kovacs, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2013) 112.
  10. M. D'Elia, L. Maio, F. Sanfilippo, and A. Stanzione, Phys. Rev. D 105, 034511 (2022).
  11. K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074033 (2008).
  12. D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A 803, 227 (2008).
  13. D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin, and G. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 88, 1 (2016).
  14. J. Zhao and F. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 200 (2019).
  15. S. K. Das, S. Plumari, S. Chatterjee, J. Alam, F. Scardina, and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B 768, 260 (2017).
  16. S. Chatterjee and P. Bozek, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134955 (2019).
  17. J. Zhao, K. Zhou, S. Chen, and P. Zhuang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 114, 103801 (2020).
  18. J. Adam et al. (STAR Collabortion), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 162301 (2019).
  19. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collabortion), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 022301 (2020).
  20. The STAR Collaboration, Nature (London) 548, 62 (2017).
  21. B. Müller and A. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D 98, 071902(R) (2018).
  22. X. Guo, J. Liao, and E. Wang, Sci. Rep. 10, 2196 (2020).
  23. Y. Guo, S. Shi, S. Feng, and J. Liao, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134929 (2019).
  24. J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 222301 (2016).
  25. W. Zha, L. Ruan, Z. Tang, Z. Xu, and S. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 789, 238 (2019).
  26. S. Klein, A. H. Mueller, B. W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 132301 (2019).
  27. J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 052302 (2021).
  28. J. D. Brandenburg, W. Zha, and Z. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 299 (2021).
  29. U. Gürsoy, D. Kharzeev, and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054905 (2014).
  30. K. Tuchin, Phys. Rev. C 93, 014905 (2016).
  31. B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B 737, 262 (2014).
  32. S. Pu, V. Roy, L. Rezzolla, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 93, 074022 (2016).
  33. G. Inghirami, L. Del Zanna, A. Beraudo, M. H. Moghaddam, F. Becattini, and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 659 (2016).
  34. L. Yan and X. G. Huang, arXiv:2104.00831.
  35. E. Stewart and K. Tuchin, Phys. Rev. C 97, 044906 (2018).
  36. E. Stewart and K. Tuchin, Nucl. Phys. A 1016, 122308 (2021).
  37. Y. Chen, X. L. Sheng, and G. L. Ma, Nucl. Phys. A 1011, 122199 (2021).
  38. K. Hattori and X. G. Huang, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 26 (2017).
  39. B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014903 (2010).
  40. G. Kestin and U. W. Heinz, Eur. Phys. J. C 61, 545 (2009).
  41. P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2003) 051.
  42. S. Gupta, Phys. Lett. B 597, 57 (2004).
  43. G. Aarts, C. Allton, J. Foley, S. Hands, and S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 022002 (2007).
  44. P. V. Buividovich, M. N. Chernodub, D. E. Kharzeev, T. Kalaydzhyan, E. V. Luschevskaya, and M. I. Polikarpov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 132001 (2010).
  45. H.-T. Ding, A. Francis, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and W. Soeldner, Phys. Rev. D 83, 034504 (2011).
  46. Y. Burnier and M. Laine, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1902 (2012).
  47. B. B. Brandt, A. Francis, H. B. Meyer, and H. Wittig, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2013) 100.
  48. A. Amato, G. Aarts, C. Allton, P. Giudice, S. Hands, and J. I. Skullerud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 172001 (2013).
  49. S. I. Finazzo and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 89, 106008 (2014).
  50. P. Sahoo, S. K. Tiwari, and R. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. D 98, 054005 (2018).
  51. W. Cassing, O. Linnyk, T. Steinert, and V. Ozvenchuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 182301 (2013).
  52. M. Greif, I. Bouras, C. Greiner, and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 90, 094014 (2014).
  53. A. Puglisi, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Phys. Rev. D 90, 114009 (2014).
  54. T. Steinert and W. Cassing, Phys. Rev. C 89, 035203 (2014).
  55. Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 71, 064901 (2005).
  56. M. Greif, C. Greiner, and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014903 (2017).
  57. Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 76, 024911 (2007).
  58. T. Hirano and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A 769, 71 (2006).
  59. A. El, F. Lauciello, C. Wesp, Z. Xu, and C. Greiner, Nucl. Phys. A 925, 150 (2014).
  60. J. P. Blaizot, F. Gelis, J. F. Liao, L. McLerran, and R. Venugopalan, Nucl. Phys. A 873, 68 (2012).
  61. P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 012301 (2018).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation