logo

Nucleosynthesis in the little bang

NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

Nucleosynthesis in the little bang

Marcus Bleicher
Nuclear Science and TechniquesVol.35, No.8Article number 129Published in print Aug 2024Available online 19 Jul 2024
673011

A new approach based on relativistic kinetic equations is proposed to solve the long-standing puzzle of light cluster formation, also called nucleosynthesis, in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. This method addresses the tension between STAR data and previous studies relying on either statistical equilibrium or coalescence approaches.

The creation of the first light nuclei approximately 20 minutes after the Big Bang is commonly known as nucleosynthesis [1], which formed deuterium, tritium (short-lived), helium, and lithium. The remnants of this process can still be observed today in the yields of deuterium and helium and minuscule traces of lithium and beryllium in the solar system. In line with the small binding energy of deuterons (the nucleus of deuterium), which is of the order of a few MeV, Big Bang nucleosynthesis proceeds at a temperature below 1 MeV. Heavier elements are then created via the fusion processes in stars, supernovae, and neutron star mergers [2, 3].

Today’s heavy-ion accelerators recreate conditions similar to those shortly after the Big Bang, enabling detailed studies on the formation of light elements. Over the past decade, two seemingly contradicting ideas have emerged to understand the production of light clusters during the collision of heavy ions. The first one is direct thermal statistical production and emission of clusters from a hot fireball at a temperature of approximately 155 MeV [4, 5]. The second one is the formation of clusters via coalescence [6-8] during the expansion stage by interactions of relatively cold protons and neutrons.

A recent study by Sun, Wang, Ko, Ma, and Shen [9] has significantly advanced our understanding of light cluster formation in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The study focused on the production of deuterons (2H), tritons (3H), and helium (3He) in collisions of gold nuclei over an energy range of sNN=7.7200 GeV (as explored in the STAR experiment at the Brookhaven National Lab’s RHIC collider [10, 11]) and in the ALICE experiment at the LHC with collisions at sNN=2.76 and 5.02 TeV [12, 13].

To solve the puzzle of light cluster formation, Sun et al. modeled the most violent stages of the reaction using a state-of-the-art (3+1)-dimensional relativistic viscous fluid dynamics model (MUSIC) [14], coupled with a network of relativistic kinetic equations [15, 16] to examine the formation of light clusters while maintaining partial chemical equilibrium [17, 18, 5]. The starting time of the kinetic approach is ascertained by a local and time-dependent particlization criterion [19], chosen here as the fixed energy density of hadronization, which provides the initial values based on local Cooper–Frye sampling from the above-mentioned constant energy density hypersurface [20].

After converting the viscous fluid to hadrons, Sun et al. solved the kinetic equations for cluster formation and dissociation in the expanding hadronic matter, which in the case of the deuteron read fdt+PEdfdR=Lfd+G(1+fd), (1) where fd denotes the deuteron phase-space distribution, P the deuteron momentum, and R the deuteron coordinate. The functions L and G on the left-hand sides of Eq. (1) are, respectively, the loss and gain rates given by the relativistic scattering kernel. Because the loss and gain rates may generally involve more than two particles, the geometric collision criterion applied in most dynamical approaches cannot be used. To overcome this difficulty, a stochastic scattering term needs to be implemented. For example, the gain rate π++n+pπ++d can be expressed as a scattering probability in the time interval Δt per volume ΔV, P32vπ+prelσπ+pπ+pWdNtest2ΔtΔV+(pn), (2) where vπ+prel represents the relative velocity of the pion and proton, and the deuteron Wigner function is denoted as Wd. (The deuteron Wigner function is a phase-space representation of the deuteron wave function [21].) Similar kinetic equations allow to calculate the time-dependent gain and loss rates for all considered clusters without assuming equilibrium in the system.

The main idea is illustrated in Fig. 1, which depicts the time evolution of a relativistic heavy-ion collision. The evolution proceeds from left to right, starting with the initial colliding nuclei experiencing a pre-equilibrium phase, followed by the quark–gluon plasma phase (modeled by relativistic hydrodynamics) until hadronic freeze-out with cluster formation (modeled by relativistic kinetic equations).

Fig. 1
(Color online) Time evolution of a relativistic heavy-ion collision. The evolution proceeds from left to right, starting with the initial colliding nuclei, via a pre-equilibrium phase, followed by the quark–gluon plasma phase (modeled by relativistic hydrodynamics) until hadronic freeze-out with cluster formation (modeled by the relativistic kinetic equations). The arrows denote the momenta of the particles, and the colors encode the particle type. The figure is taken from Ref. [9]
pic

After careful testings of their novel approach in static box calculations to validate the numerical implementation and demonstrate that the kinetic equations yield the correct thermodynamic asymptotic state, the recent STAR data on cluster production can be analyzed.

The strong effect of the hadronic stage, as modeled by the kinetic equations, is illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows the time evolutions of the deuteron (d) and triton (3H) numbers for gold-gold (Au+Au) collisions at sNN=200 GeV for calculations with (yellow band) and without (blue band) hadronic rescattering after thermal cluster production at the end of the hydrodynamic phase.

Fig. 2
(Color online) Calculated time evolution of the deuteron (d) and triton (3H) numbers for calculations with (yellow band) and without (blue band) hadronic rescattering for gold-gold (Au+Au) collisions at sNN=200 GeV. The red symbol indicates the experimental data from the STAR collaboration. The figure is taken from Ref. [9]
pic

One clearly observes that especially for the triton (3H) a substantial depletion emerges due to the hadronic dynamics which is absent in the case of direct emission from the hydrodynamic stage (blue band). The main reason for this depletion is that the kinetic equation allows for the evolution of the triton yield through the hadronic stage either in partial equilibrium or even out of equilibrium.

Physically, the suppression of the triton yield is in line with other indications of a long-lasting hadronic rescattering stage after the quark-gluon-plasma phase transition. For example, the yields of hadronic resonances (states such as K*, ρ, Λ*, ∑*) are suppressed relative to their ground states. This is usually interpreted as the absorption of their decay daughter particles which are rescattered in the hadronic medium and destroy the resonance signal in an invariant mass analysis [22]. In addition, these analyses reveal a hadronic lifetime of the order of 10 fm/c [23].

The energy dependence of cluster production is shown in Fig. 3 (left) for the triton-to-proton ratio in central Au+Au collisions over an energy range of sNN=7.7–200 GeV. The red symbols represent STAR data [11], whereas the kinetic equation results are depicted as yellow bands. The blue line indicates the statistical hadronization model (SHM) (taken from [11]). One clearly observes that the inclusion of further hadronic interactions after the hadronization from the hydrodynamic stage leads to a reduction of the triton production by a factor of 1.8 compared to the statistical model. As shown in Fig. 3 (right), this effect is even more pronounced by studying the ratio of the product of the number of tritons and protons to the square of the number of deuterons. The inclusion of hadronic re-scatterings led again to a substantial reduction and brings the calculations more closely with experimental data. One should note that there have been intense speculations of a potential local maximum of this ratio, which might indicate the existence of enhanced neutron number fluctuations, potentially related to a critical point [24].

Fig. 3
(Color online) Left: Energy dependence of the triton (3H)-to-proton ratio from the kinetic equation approach (yellow band) compared with the statistical hadronization model, SHM (blue line and dashed blue line, SHM divided by 1.8) and the data from the STAR experiment (symbols). Right: The ratio of the product of the number of tritons and protons to the square of the number of deuterons as a function of energy (yellow band) compared with the statistical hadronization model, SHM (blue line), and the STAR data (symbols) for gold-gold (Au+Au) collisions from sNN=7.7200 GeV. The figure is taken from Ref. [9]
pic

In summary, the production of light clusters in relativistic heavy-ion collisions resembles the process of nucleosynthesis as it was proceeding around 20 minutes after the Big Bang. During the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the formation of deuteron, triton and helium proceeded only after the temperature dropped below a few MeV. In heavy-ion collisions, two conflicting interpretations were put forward: statistical production directly from the phase boundary and late stage coalescence in kinetic models. The current work by Sun et al. has made important progress to clarify this question and to lead to a unified picture of light cluster production. By solving a network of relativistic kinetic equations, following the hadronization they quantified the deviations from the statistical hadronization model with high precision, while still benchmarking their rate equations to yield the statistical result for asymptotic times. Additionally, the study provides the first quantitative description of the full RHIC data on the ratio N3H×Np/Nd2 and indicates that the previous speculations about enhanced neutron number fluctuations are not well justified and require further investigations.

Finally, one should not underestimate the potential of the developed method for the further exploration of more exotic cluster state, e.g. multi-strange hypernuclei, which will be in the focus of new experiments at FAIR [25, 26] and HIAF [27].

References
1. T.P. Walker, G. Steigman, D.N. Schramm et al.,

Primordial nucleosynthesis redux

. Astrophys. J. 376, 51-69 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1086/170255
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
2. M. Arnould, S. Goriely and K. Takahashi,

The r-process of stellar nucleosynthesis: Astrophysics and nuclear physics achievements and mysteries

. Phys. Rept. 450, 97-213 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
3. E. Pian, P. D’Avanzo, S. Benetti et al.,

Spectroscopic identification of r-process nucleosynthesis in a double neutron star merger

. Nature 551, 67-70 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24298
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
4. P. Braun-Munzinger and B. Dönigus,

Loosely-bound objects produced in nuclear collisions at the LHC

. Nucl. Phys. A 987, 144-201 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2019.02.006
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
5. T. Neidig, K. Gallmeister, C. Greiner et al.,

Towards solving the puzzle of high temperature light (anti)-nuclei production in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions

. Phys. Lett. B 827, 136891 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136891
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
6. K.J. Sun, C.M. Ko and B. Dönigus,

Suppression of light nuclei production in collisions of small systems at the Large Hadron Collider

. Phys. Lett. B 792, 132-137 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.033
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
7. S. Sombun, K. Tomuang, A. Limphirat et al.,

Deuteron production from phase-space coalescence in the UrQMD approach

. Phys. Rev. C 99, 014901 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.014901
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
8. W. Zhao, C. Shen, C.M. Ko et al.,

Beam-energy dependence of the production of light nuclei in Au + Au collisions

. Phys. Rev. C 102, 044912 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.044912
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
9. K.J. Sun, R. Wang, C.M. Ko et al.,

Unveiling the dynamics of little-bang nucleosynthesis

. Nature Commun. 15, 1074 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45474-x
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
10. J. Adam, L. Adamczyk, J.R. Adams et al. [STAR Collaboration],

Beam energy dependence of (anti-)deuteron production in Au + Au collisions at the BNL relativistic heavy-ion collider

. Phys. Rev. C 99, 064905 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.064905
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
11. M.I. Abdulhamid, B.E. Aboona, J. Adam et al. [STAR Collaboration],

Beam energy dependence of triton production and yield ratio (Nt×Np/Nd2) in Au+Au collisions at RHIC

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 202301 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.202301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
12. S. Acharya, D. Adamová, J. Adolfsson et al. [ALICE Collaboration],

Measurement of deuteron spectra and elliptic flow in Pb–Pb collisions at sNN=2.76 TeV at the LHC

. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 658 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5222-x
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
13. E. Bartsch [ALICE Collaboration],

New results of light (anti-)(hyper-)nuclei production and hypertriton lifetime in Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC

. Nucl. Phys. A 1005, 121791 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.121791
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
14. B. Schenke, S. Jeon and C. Gale,

(3+1)D hydrodynamic simulation of relativistic heavy-ion collisions

. Phys. Rev. C 82, 014903 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.014903
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
15. J. Staudenmaier, D. Oliinychenko, J.M. Torres-Rincon et al.

Deuteron production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions via stochastic multiparticle reactions

. Phys. Rev. C 104, 034908 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.034908
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
16. K.J. Sun, R. Wang, C.M. Ko et al.,

Relativistic kinetic approach to light nuclei production in high-energy nuclear collisions

. [arXiv:2106.12742 [nucl-th]].
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
17. X. Xu and R. Rapp,

Production of light nuclei at thermal freezeout in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions

. Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 68 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2019-12757-7
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
18. V. Vovchenko, K. Gallmeister, J. Schaffner-Bielich et al.,

Nucleosynthesis in heavy-ion collisions at the LHC via the Saha equation

. Phys. Lett. B 800, 135131 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135131
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
19. P. Huovinen and H. Petersen,

Particlization in hybrid models

. Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 171 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2012-12171-9
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
20. H. Petersen, J. Steinheimer, G. Burau et al.,

A fully integrated transport approach to heavy-ion reactions with an intermediate hydrodynamic stage

. Phys. Rev. C 78, 044901 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.78.044901
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
21. M. Hillery, R.F. O’Connell, M.O. Scully et al.,

Distribution functions in physics: Fundamentals

. Phys. Rept. 106, 121-167 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(84)90160-1
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
22. M. Bleicher and J. Aichelin,

Strange resonance production: Probing chemical and thermal freezeout in relativistic heavy ion collisions

. Phys. Lett. B 530, 81-87 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01334-5
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
23. A.G. Knospe, C. Markert, K. Werner et al.,

Hadronic resonance production and interaction in partonic and hadronic matter in the EPOS3 model with and without the hadronic afterburner UrQMD

. Phys. Rev. C 93, 014911 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.014911
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
24. K.J. Sun, L.W. Chen, C.M. Ko et al.,

Probing QCD critical fluctuations from light nuclei production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

. Phys. Lett. B 774, 103-107 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.056
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
25. O. Lubynets, I. Selyuzhenkov [CBM Collaboration],

CBM performance for the measurement of (multi)strange hadrons’ anisotropic flow in Au+Au collisions at FAIR

. PoS FAIRness2022, 034 (2023). https://doi.org/10.22323/1.419.0034
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
26. A. Kittiratpattana, T. Reichert, N. Buyukcizmeci et al.,

Production of nuclei and hypernuclei in pion-induced reactions near threshold energies

. Phys. Rev. C 109, 044913 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.109.044913
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
27. X. Luo, Q. Wang, N. Xu et al., Properties of QCD matter at high Baryon density. Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4441-3