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
  • Open Access

Exploiting Ne20 Isotopes for Precision Characterizations of Collectivity in Small Systems

Giuliano Giacalone1,*, Benjamin Bally2, Govert Nijs3, Shihang Shen4, Thomas Duguet5,6, Jean-Paul Ebran7,8, Serdar Elhatisari9,10, Mikael Frosini11, Timo A. Lähde12,13 et al.

Dean Lee14, Bing-Nan Lu15, Yuan-Zhuo Ma14, Ulf-G. Meißner10,16,17, Jacquelyn Noronha-Hostler18, Christopher Plumberg19, Tomás R. Rodríguez20, Robert Roth21,22, Wilke van der Schee3,23,24, and Vittorio Somà5

  • *Contact author: giacalone@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 012302 – Published 2 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/k8rb-jgvq

Abstract

Whether or not femto-scale droplets of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) are formed in so-called small systems at high-energy colliders is a pressing question in the phenomenology of the strong interaction. For proton-proton or proton-nucleus collisions the answer is inconclusive due to the large theoretical uncertainties plaguing the description of these processes. While upcoming data on collisions of O16 nuclei may mitigate these uncertainties in the near future, here we demonstrate the unique possibilities offered by complementing O16+O16 data with collisions of Ne20 ions. We couple both nuclear lattice effective field theory (NLEFT) and projected generator coordinate method (PGCM) ab initio descriptions of the structure of Ne20 and O16 to hydrodynamic simulations of O16+O16 and Ne20+Ne20 collisions at high energy. We isolate the imprints of the bowling-pin shape of Ne20 on the collective flow of hadrons, which can be used to perform quantitative tests of the hydrodynamic QGP paradigm. In particular, we predict that the elliptic flow of Ne20+Ne20 collisions is enhanced by as much as 1.174(8)stat(31)syst for NLEFT and 1.139(6)stat(39)syst for PGCM relative to O16+O16 collisions for the 1% most central events. At the same time, theoretical uncertainties largely cancel when studying relative variations of observables between two systems. This demonstrates a method based on experiments with two light-ion species for precision characterizations of the collective dynamics and its emergence in a small system.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (117)

  1. W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 339 (2018).
  2. D. A. Teaney,Viscous hydrodynamics and the quark gluon plasma, in Quark-Gluon Plasma 4, edited by R. C. Hwa and X.-N. Wang (World Scientific, Singapore, 2010), pp. 207–266, 10.1142/9789814293297_0004.
  3. J.-Y. Ollitrault, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 236 (2023).
  4. J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D 46, 229 (1992).
  5. D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C 83, 064904 (2011).
  6. J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 211 (2018).
  7. B. Schenke, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 082301 (2021).
  8. J. Noronha, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2430005 (2024).
  9. G. S. Rocha, D. Wagner, G. S. Denicol, J. Noronha, and D. H. Rischke, Entropy 26, 189 (2024).
  10. R. D. Weller and P. Romatschke, Phys. Lett. B 774, 351 (2017).
  11. H. Mäntysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, Phys. Lett. B 772, 681 (2017).
  12. J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 101, 024911 (2020).
  13. B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135322 (2020).
  14. W. Zhao, Y. Zhou, K. Murase, and H. Song, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 846 (2020).
  15. Y. Wang, W. Zhao, and H. Song, arXiv:2401.00913.
  16. A. Kurkela, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, Phys. Lett. B 783, 274 (2018).
  17. A. Kurkela, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 759 (2019).
  18. A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, J.-F. Paquet, S. Schlichting, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 122302 (2019).
  19. A. Kurkela, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 965 (2019).
  20. A. Kurkela, S. F. Taghavi, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135901 (2020).
  21. V. E. Ambrus, S. Schlichting, and C. Werthmann, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014031 (2022).
  22. V. E. Ambrus, S. Schlichting, and C. Werthmann, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094013 (2023).
  23. V. E. Ambrus, S. Schlichting, and C. Werthmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 152301 (2023).
  24. T. Altinoluk and N. Armesto, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 215 (2020).
  25. P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Relativistic Fluid Dynamics in and out of Equilibrium, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2019), http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108651998.
  26. J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 412, 167993 (2020).
  27. S. Schlichting and D. Teaney, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 447 (2019).
  28. J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venugopalan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035003 (2021).
  29. A. Soloviev, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 319 (2022).
  30. C. Aidala et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Nat. Phys. 15, 214 (2019).
  31. M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 242301 (2023).
  32. M. I. Abdulhamid, B. E. Aboona, J. Adam, J. R. Adams, G. Agakishiev, I. Aggarwal, M. M. Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed, A. Aitbaev et al., Phys. Rev. C 110, 064902 (2024).
  33. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 724, 213 (2013).
  34. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 428 (2017).
  35. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 142301 (2019).
  36. U. A. Acharya et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 105, 024901 (2022).
  37. W. Zhao, S. Ryu, C. Shen, and B. Schenke, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014904 (2023).
  38. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 92, 034911 (2015).
  39. P. Bozek and W. Broniowski, Phys. Lett. B 752, 206 (2016).
  40. J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, in Proceedings of the Opportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC (2021), arXiv:2103.01939.
  41. S. Huang, arXiv:2312.12167.
  42. M. D. Sievert and J. Noronha-Hostler, Phys. Rev. C 100, 024904 (2019).
  43. B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, Phys. Rev. C 102, 044905 (2020).
  44. G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Phys. Rev. C 106, 044903 (2022).
  45. G. Giacalone, J. Jia, and V. Somà, Phys. Rev. C 104, L041903 (2021).
  46. M. Abdallah et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 105, 014901 (2022).
  47. C. Zhang and J. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022301 (2022).
  48. G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, SciPost Phys. 15, 041 (2023).
  49. H. Hergert, Front. Phys. 8, 379 (2020).
  50. A. Ekström, C. Forssén, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, W. Jiang, and T. Papenbrock, Front. Phys. 11, 1129094 (2023).
  51. G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Dean, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 096302 (2014).
  52. H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, T. D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, Phys. Rep. 621, 165 (2016).
  53. V. Somà, P. Navrátil, F. Raimondi, C. Barbieri, and T. Duguet, Phys. Rev. C 101, 014318 (2020).
  54. S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 022501 (2021).
  55. A. Tichai, R. Roth, and T. Duguet, Front. Phys. 8, 164 (2020).
  56. P. Arthuis, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, arXiv:2401.06675.
  57. B. Hu et al., Nat. Phys. 18, 1196 (2022).
  58. D. Lee, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 63, 117 (2009).
  59. T. A. Lähde and U.-G. Meißner, Nuclear Lattice Effective Field Theory: An Introduction (Springer, New York, 2019), Vol. 957.
  60. D. Lee, Front. Phys. 8, 174 (2020).
  61. S. Elhatisari, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, N. Li, B.-n. Lu, U.-G. Meißner, and G. Rupak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 222505 (2017).
  62. B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134863 (2019).
  63. N. Summerfield, B.-N. Lu, C. Plumberg, D. Lee, J. Noronha-Hostler, and A. Timmins, Phys. Rev. C 104, L041901 (2021).
  64. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/k8rb-jgvq for a detailed discussion of the treatment of uncertainties.
  65. M. Frosini, T. Duguet, B. Bally, Y. Beaujeault-Taudière, J. P. Ebran, and V. Somà, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 151 (2021).
  66. J. M. Yao, J. Engel, L. J. Wang, C. F. Jiao, and H. Hergert, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054311 (2018).
  67. J. M. Yao, B. Bally, J. Engel, R. Wirth, T. R. Rodríguez, and H. Hergert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 232501 (2020).
  68. M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, and V. Somà, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 62 (2022).
  69. M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, B. Bally, T. Mongelli, T. R. Rodríguez, R. Roth, and V. Somà, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 63 (2022).
  70. M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, B. Bally, H. Hergert, T. R. Rodríguez, R. Roth, J. Yao, and V. Somà, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 64 (2022).
  71. T. Hüther, K. Vobig, K. Hebeler, R. Machleidt, and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135651 (2020).
  72. S. Marcos, H. Flocard, and P. H. Heenen, Nucl. Phys. A410, 125 (1983).
  73. L. M. Robledo and G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C 84, 054302 (2011).
  74. P. Marević, J. P. Ebran, E. Khan, T. Nikšić, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 97, 024334 (2018).
  75. M. Kimura, T. Suhara, and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 373 (2016).
  76. Y. Wang, S. Zhao, B. Cao, H.-j. Xu, and H. Song, Phys. Rev. C 109, L051904 (2024).
  77. B. Bally, M. Bender, G. Giacalone, and V. Somà, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 082301 (2022).
  78. B. Bally, G. Giacalone, and M. Bender, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 187 (2022).
  79. G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. Gürsoy, and R. Snellings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 202301 (2021).
  80. G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. Gürsoy, and R. Snellings, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054909 (2021).
  81. G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 232301 (2022).
  82. For all profiles we provide 20 k configurations as part of the submission.

  83. J. Weil et al. (SMASH Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 94, 054905 (2016).
  84. D. Oliinychenko, V. Steinberg, J. Weil, M. Kretz, J. Staudenmaier, S. Ryu, A. Schäfer, J. Rothermel, J. Mohs, F. Li, H. E. (Petersen), L. Pang, D. Mitrovic, A. Goldschmidt, L. Geiger, J.-B. Rose, J. Hammelmann, and L. Prinz, smash-transport/smash: Smash-1.8 (2020).
  85. T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008).
  86. G. Giacalone, G. Nijs, and W. van der Schee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 202302 (2023).
  87. P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C 93, 044908 (2016).
  88. P. Bozek and H. Mehrabpour, Phys. Rev. C 101, 064902 (2020).
  89. G. Giacalone, F. G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 103, 024909 (2021).
  90. G. Giacalone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 202301 (2020).
  91. G. Giacalone, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024901 (2020).
  92. J. Jia, S. Huang, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014906 (2022).
  93. N. Magdy, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 64 (2023).
  94. STAR Collaboration, Nature (London) 635, 67 (2024).
  95. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 834, 137393 (2022).
  96. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 107, 054910 (2023).
  97. B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh, and M. Horoi, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 107, 1 (2016); 114, 371(E) (2017).
  98. J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044905 (2022).
  99. G. Giacalone, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 297 (2023).
  100. G. Giacalone, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 192301 (2020).
  101. Here the charge radii equal the matter radii for NLEFT since the computation is isospin symmetric. For PGCM the matter radii are about 0.012 fm smaller than the charge radii.

  102. P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020).
  103. Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 052002 (2022).
  104. I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 99, 69 (2013).
  105. N. Fortier, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 111, 014901 (2025).
  106. Y. Kanakubo, Y. Tachibana, and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C 105, 024905 (2022).
  107. Y. Kanakubo, Y. Tachibana, and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054908 (2022).
  108. F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, V. Hoang, J. Noronha, and M. Radosz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 222301 (2021).
  109. C. Plumberg, D. Almaalol, T. Dore, J. Noronha, and J. Noronha-Hostler, Phys. Rev. C 105, L061901 (2022).
  110. R. Krupczak et al., Phys. Rev. C 109, 034908 (2024).
  111. L. He, T. Edmonds, Z.-W. Lin, F. Liu, D. Molnar, and F. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 753, 506 (2016).
  112. J. Schukraft, A. Timmins, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 719, 394 (2013).
  113. C. Beattie, G. Nijs, M. Sas, and W. van der Schee, Phys. Lett. B 836, 137596 (2023).
  114. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), J. Instrum. 17, P05009 (2022).
  115. G. Giacalone, B. Schenke, S. Schlichting, and P. Singh, EPJ Web Conf. 296, 10005 (2024).
  116. H. Mäntysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 062301 (2023).
  117. www.gauss-centre.eu

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation