Fetching the paper…

Reading the bibliography…

pQCD vs. AdS/CFT Tested by Heavy Quark Energy Loss · Around

2007

pQCD vs. AdS/CFT Tested by Heavy Quark Energy Loss

Horowitz, W. A.

Original
PDF
Post on X

Understand

We predict the charm and bottom quark nuclear modification factors using weakly coupled pQCD and strongly coupled AdS/CFT drag methods.

The log(pT/M_Q)/pT dependence of pQCD loss and the momentum independence of drag loss lead to different momentum dependencies for the R_{AA} predictions.
This difference is enhanced by examining a new experimental observable, the double ratio of charm to bottom nuclear modification factors, R^{cb}=R^c_{AA}/R^b_{AA}.
At LHC the weakly coupled theory predicts R^{cb} goes to 1; whereas the strongly coupled theory predicts R^{cb} .2 independent of pT.

Built on

D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 68
2002
Earlier work this paper cites.
N. Armesto, C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D 69
2005
Earlier work this paper cites.
PHOBOS Collab., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88
2005
Earlier work this paper cites.

Similar

I. Vitev and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89
2006
Cited alongside, same era.
A. El, C. Greiner and Z. Xu, arXiv:0706.4212 [hep-ph]; S. Wicks, W. Horowitz, M. Djordjevic and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A 784
Original
2006
Cited alongside, same era.
H. Liu, K. Rajagopal and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97
2006
Cited alongside, same era.
W. A. Horowitz and M. Gyulassy, arXiv:0706.2336 [nucl-th]
Original
Cited in the paper.

Then

P. Kovtun, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94
2007
Closest in time.
H. Liu, K. Rajagopal and U. A. Wiedemann, JHEP 0703
2007
Closest in time.
S. S. Gubser, hep-th/0612143; J. Casalderrey-Solana and D. Teaney, JHEP 0704
Original
2007
Closest in time.

Beyond the bibliography

alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.

Open on alphaXiv

alphaXiv is searching for related work…