Craig Ogilvie

 

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY

 

II. Current Rank

Associate Professor

 

III. Degrees Held

Ph.D.                                       University of Birmingham, England.                               1987    Physics

B.Sc. (Honors, First Class),      University of Canterbury, New Zealand.                        1983    Physics

 

IV. Professional Experience

Assistant Professor of Physics, Iowa State University, IA                                              2000 - present

Assistant Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA       1992 - 2000

Consultant, Unica Technologies, Lincoln, MA                                                   2000

Research Scientist, GSI, Darmstadt, Germany                                                   1990 - 1992

Research Scientist, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI                                    1987 - 1990

V. Candidate Statement

 

My scholarly work includes a strong combination of both physics and learning research. In my physics research, I strive to understand how fundamental quarks and gluons combine to form nuclear matter, and in my learning research, I investigate how students master complex concepts and skills and what can be done to increase student learning. Both areas of scholarship come from my drive to understand how things work and a passion to teach. A common thread across both areas is my seeking quantitative rather than qualitative answers to research questions. For example, in my research on learning I am interested in how much students learn by doing weekly problem sets. As part of my studies I have quantitatively compared gains in student conceptual knowledge after students receive different amounts of feedback in on-line problem sets. Similarly in my physics research on the quark-gluon plasma, a state of matter of free quarks and gluons, I have focused on measurements that can quantitatively probe the physical properties of the plasma. The theme of making progress by seeking quantitative rather than qualitative answers throughout my scholarship is highlighted in the following sections:

 

Quark-Gluon Plasma

Within each familiar proton and neutron there is a hive of quarks and gluons, fluctuating in and out of existence. A striking result is that quarks and gluons are completely confined within the proton or neutron. No free quark or gluon has ever been observed. Why quarks and gluons are confined is not fully understood and is one of the most challenging questions of current fundamental physics.

 

Confinement likely involves two interlinked phenomena, long-range correlations in the physical vacuum that exclude the color-field emanating from quarks and the extremely strong interaction between quarks and gluons. To make progress on confinement we need to separate these two effects and study each individually. One way to do this is to make a much larger system of quarks and gluons where the role of the vacuum at the surface of the larger system is much reduced. Such a large system can be produced by compressing or heating nuclear matter so that the neutrons and protons begin to overlap. As the boundaries between each neutron and proton disappear, a large volume of a new state of matter should be formed - the quark gluon plasma (QGP). The strong interactions between quarks and gluons dominate the properties of the QGP, and because of the larger volume of the system, the influence of the correlated vacuum is much reduced.

 

From 2000 to 2001 the first collisions between two heavy nuclei took place at Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). The results indicate that the plasma may be formed in these reactions. Leading the evidence for the QGP is the reduced yield of particles at high transverse momenta (pt). These particles predominantly come from rare, high-momentum collisions between quarks and gluons (partons) that occur in the hot, early stage of the reaction. As high momentum partons travel through the forming plasma, they are predicted to lose a considerable fraction of their energy. Outside the collision zone high-momentum partons fragment into hadrons, and any energy-loss in the plasma softens the hadronic spectrum, i.e. lowers the measured yield of hadrons at high-pt. The first high-pt spectra from Au+Au collisions measured by PHENIX at RHIC were published in 2001 with the key observation that the high-pt spectra are softer in central than in peripheral collisions. Because a central reaction would produce a larger volume of QGP, this result is consistent with the hard-scattered parton losing energy in a QGP.

 

Extracting quantitative information on the properties of the QGP from this result is difficult because other factors influence the yield of high-pt hadrons. Both the initial distribution of gluons in the nucleus and the amount of scattering that takes place before the hard scattering influence the shape of the spectra and both are currently unknown. Progress requires another quantitative view of the same phenomenon, for example by studying the shape of angular correlations between hadrons at high-pt. This observable has the advantage that it is not sensitive to the unknown initial gluon distribution and scattering.

 

Angular correlations between high-pt hadrons have been studied in simpler proton+proton reactions, where scattered hard partons fragment into a narrow cone of high-pt hadrons, a "jet". In Au+Au reactions if the hard-parton travels through the plasma it is predicted to lose energy by radiating gluons. When this flux of gluons hadronizes the jet should be broader than if the parton had not traveled through a plasma. In heavy-ion reactions it is difficult to identify jets, but the broader radiation pattern may be observable by measuring the angle correlation function between high-pt hadrons.

 

I have taken a lead role in obtaining angular correlations from the first data at RHIC. Preliminary results show that hadrons at transverse momenta above 2 GeV/c are correlated, i.e. are emitted at similar angles consistent with jet production. The puzzling result is that the detailed shape of the near-angle correlation changes very little from proton+proton reactions to central heavy-ion collisions, suggesting that either the correlations are dominated by hard-scatterings that occur near the surface of the reaction or that the emitted gluons hardly affect the shape of the correlation function. To make progress on this question we are studying the shape of the correlations near 180 degrees, where the hadrons come from back-to-back jets and at least one of the hard partons must have traveled through a large amount of plasma.

 

Even though high-pt spectra and correlations are promising probes of the QGP, the overall caution remains that a heavy-ion reaction is a very complex, challenging environment. A strong case for the existence and properties of the QGP must rely on a broad range of observations. To extend our repertoire of probes, I am currently leading a major upgrade for PHENIX to install a new Si vertex detector. This detector is designed to quantitatively probe the early, highest energy-density phase of the matter formed in a heavy-ion reaction by measuring the yield and spectra of heavy-flavored mesons.

 

Measuring the spectra of charm and beauty-mesons requires a tracking resolution of less than 100 mm to measure the decay of mesons displaced from the collision point. Currently the geometry and layout of the upgrade is being designed, and alternative detector technologies are being investigated. This upgrade effort is likely to have a budget in the vicinity of $5-7M and could be the next major project for the heavy-ion group at ISU. We are well placed to take a major role in the construction of this detector and/or its electronics. Prototyping the electronics has started with a joint project between myself and Prof. Gary Tuttle in the Electrical Engineering Department at ISU.

 

I am also co-convenor of Hadron Physics Working Group in PHENIX. As convenor I coordinate the analysis efforts of approximately twenty PhD students and post-docs collaboration wide. From the first run of RHIC, I managed the analysis, submission and publication of seven collaboration papers. Prior to my work at RHIC, I helped lead experiments at the AGS accelerator at Brookhaven and spearheaded measurements on production of strange-particles (kaons, lambdas) as a function of beam-energy and centrality. From this work we concluded that the QGP is not formed in collisions at beam energies below 10 GeV/nucleon.

 

Learning Research

I have the responsibility to represent the community of physicists and the cumulated knowledge of physics to all students enrolled in my courses. As part of this responsibility, I am interested in measuring the impact that different parts of teaching have on how much students actually learn. This has guided my decisions on which innovations to make and how successful they are in improving learning. I have listed several of these developments in Appendix A, and in this section I illustrate my work with one example.

 

I have been assessing the impact of on-line problem sets on student learning. There are two potential advantages of on-line work compared to traditional written problem sets; 1) the on-line tool can provide immediate and detailed feedback to the student and 2) a reduced grading load for the TAs so that they can use their time more productively, e.g. working interactively with small groups of students.

 

In Fall 2001 I taught Phys 222 (500 students) and implemented on-line weekly problem sets using webCT. The students submitted their answers online, webCT automatically graded the work and provided detailed and specific feedback tailored to the student. Each student received three types of feedback on their online work; 1) a full solution to each question, 2) which questions they got right or wrong and 3) if wrong, what mistakes they may have made and how they could avoid that error in the future. For example if the problem required the use of the Kelvin temperature scale, one of the multiple-choice answers would be the incorrect value a student would obtain if he/she used the Celsius scale. If a student chose that wrong answer they would get specific advice on which temperature scale to use. The individualized feedback was available for students to view the rest of the semester.

 

To quantify how much physics students learnt in my course, I asked each student to answer a standard diagnostic of magnetism questions (available from the research literature) both before and after instruction. The gain in student scores can be calculated as

where averages were calculated for all students who took the diagnostic test. This definition of gain is the actual improvement of scores over the maximum possible improvement. The average pre-score for 281 students on the magnetic questions (<pre>) was (18.3±0.8)%. After instruction the average post-score for the magnetic questions was (59.7±1.3)% with 281 students taking the post-diagnostic. The gain g=0.51±0.02 is at the upper end of gains reported in the original survey of courses using the diagnostic. Typical gains for comparable large enrollment courses in the literature survey are in the range of 0.2-0.3.

 

To assess whether feedback in the on-line assignments helps students learn physics, I divided the class randomly into two groups for one assignment. The first group received feedback immediately after submitting the assignment. This group had 10% higher gains on the relevant questions in the diagnostic than students who received their feedback delayed by a few days. This result is robust at the 90% C.L. The benefit of prompt feedback is possibly more pronounced for students who made more mistakes on the assignment. The implication is when using on-line assignments students learn more if they are provided with immediate feedback on how well they did and where they could improve. I have submitted this work for publication in the American Journal of Physics, Education Research Supplement and have just received favorable referee reports. I also presented a seminar on the work to the Science Education group in the Department of Education at ISU.

 

In the coming years I have plans to improve the problem-solving skills of students and to add more open-ended exploratory experiments to the labs. Throughout these changes I will attempt to measure how much students learn and which parts of the course design have any measurable impact. By gathering this data, I have a basis for continually improving the course and helping the students learn more physics.

 

VI. Factual Basis for Recommendation of Excellence in Scholarship (Last Six Years)

 

A. Teaching

 

1. TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES AND STUDENT EVALUATIONS

 

Semester

Teaching

Assignment

Course

University

Number Students

Rating

(1-5)

5 highest

Spring 02

Research leave

 

ISU

 

 

Fall 01

Lecturer

Phys 222, calculus-based E/M

ISU

306

4.2

Spring 01

Research leave

 

ISU

 

 

Fall 00

Recitation

Phys 222, calculus-based E/M

ISU

24

4.9

Spring 00

Lecturer

8.01, calculus-based mechanics

MIT

100

4.1

Fall 99

Recitation

8.01, calculus-based mechanics

MIT

40

4.2

Spring 99

Lecturer

8.01, calculus-based mechanics

MIT

100

4.6

Fall 98

Lecturer

8.712, graduate Nuclear Physics

MIT

15

N/A

Spring 98

Recitation

8.02x, calculus-based E/M

MIT

40

4.1

Fall 97

Recitation

8.07, advanced E/M

MIT

20

4.2

Spring 97

Recitation

8.04, intro quantum mechanics

MIT

20

4.4

Fall 96

Recitation

8.01x, calculus-based mechanics

MIT

40

4.5

Spring 96

Lecturer

8.02x, calculus-based E/M

MIT

135

4.5

Career

Average

 

 

 

 

4.34

 

MIT teaching evaluations have been converted from a scale of 1-7 to ISU scale of 1-5

 

2. COURSE AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY

 

Throughout my career I have strived to increase student learning in the courses that I teach. Some of the gains in student understanding are documented in the section “Candidate Statement”, while in this section I have summarized my various teaching innovations (more details can be found in Appendix A):

 

  1. Redesigned physics recitations in Phys 222 and 8.01 (MIT) to increase student problem-solving skills by having students work cooperatively on complex, realistic problems.
  2. Implemented on-line assignments for Phys 222 that provided detailed and specific feedback tailored to the student.
  3. Added active learning exercises to lectures of Phys 222 to improve student learning.  
  4. Extended an introductory physics course (8.01x MIT) to have “take-home” experiments where students worked in pairs to construct experiments from small inexpensive parts.
  5. Developed and taught a distance-learning graduate level course at MIT (8.712) on Relativistic Heavy-Ion Physics. Students at several universities across the country participated in the lectures via live videoconference.

 

 3. ADVISING

 

3.1 Undergraduate students working on research projects

Average of three students per year for past three years

3.2 M.A. Committees

            Completed: Tris Tanadi (Electrical Engineering)

3.3 Ph.D. Committees

            In progress: Paul Constantin, Mohammed Al Shorman, Hua Pei, Nathan Grau

Completed: James Dunlop, MIT (Ph.D. awarded 2000), George Heintzelman, MIT (Ph.D. awarded 1999), Larry Ahle, MIT (Ph.D. awarded 1998)

3.3 Post-Doctoral Fellows

Jan Rak, Gunther Roland, Eleanor Judd, Mark Baker

 

4. HONORS AND AWARDS FOR TEACHING/SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING

 

2002    Miller Faculty Fellow, ISU

2002    “Exceptional Student Support”, Student Scholars and Leaders Recognition, ISU

2002    Nominated Outstanding Faculty Teacher, Interfraternity Council, ISU

1997    James H. Ferry, Jr. Fund for Innovation in Research Education, MIT

1996    Buechner Prize for Teaching, Department of Physics, MIT

 

B. Research

 

1 PUBLICATIONS

 

c. Papers in Refereed Journals

  1.  “Measurement of the lambda and anti-lambda particles in Au+Au collisions at S(NN)**(1/2) = 130-GEV”, PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al.). Phys.Rev.Lett. 89: 092302, 2002.
  2. “Event-by-event Fluctuations in Mean P(T) and Mean E(T) in S(NN)**(1/2) = 130-GEV Au+Au Collisions”, PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al.).Phys.Rev.C 66, 024901, 2002
  3. “Net Charge Fluctuations in Au+Au Interactions at sqrt(s_NN) = 130 GeV." PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al.), Phys.Rev.Lett. 89, 082301 (2002),
  4. “Measurement of Single Electrons and Implications For Charm Production in Au+Au Collisions at S**(1/2)(NN) = 130-GEV”. By PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al) Phys.Rev.Lett.88:192303,2002
  5. “Overview of PHENIX Results from the First RHIC Run” By PHENIX Collaboration (W.A. Zajc et al.). Nucl.Phys.A698:39-53,2002
  6. “Transverse Mass Dependence of Two Pion Correlations in Au+Au Collisions at S(NN)**(1/2) = 130-GeV”. By PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al.). Phys.Rev.Lett.88:192302,2002
  7. “Centrality Dependence of PI+ / PI-, K+ / K-, P and anti-P Production from S(NN)**(1/2) = 130 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC.” By PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al.). Phys.Rev.Lett. 88:242301,2002
  8. “Review of Nuclear Reactions at the AGS.” C.A. Ogilvie Nucl.Phys.A698:3-12,2002
  9. “Systematic Study of AU-AU Collisions with AGS Experiment E917”. By E917 Collaboration (B. Holzman et al.). Nucl.Phys.A698:643-646,2002
  10. “Suppression of Hadrons with Large Transverse Momentum in Central Au+Au Collisions at S(NN)**(1/2) = 130-GeV. By PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al.). Phys.Rev.Lett.88:022301,2002
  11. “Strangeness Production in Au + Au Collisions at AGS Energies” By E917 Collaboration (B.B. Back et al.) J.Phys.G27:301-309,2001
  12. “Measurement of the Midrapidity Transverse Energy Distribution from S(NN)**(1/2) = 130-GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC” By PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al.). Phys.Rev.Lett.87:052301,2001
  13. “Centrality Dependence of Charged Particle Multiplicity in Au+Au Collisions at S**(1/2) = 130-GEV, PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al.) Phys.Rev.Lett.86:3500-3505,2001
  14. “Baryon Rapidity Loss in Relativistic Au+Au Collisions”, B.B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1970 (2001)
  15. “Elliptic Flow in Au + Au Collisions at (S(NN))**(1/2) = 130 GeV”, STAR Collaboration K.H. Ackermann et al., Phys.Rev.Lett.86, 402 (2001)
  16. “Antilambda Production in Au+Au Collisions at 11.7 A GeV/C”, B.B. Back et al.. nucl-ex/0101008
  17. “An Excitation Function of K- and K+ Production in Au+Au Reactions at the AGS”, L. Ahle et al., Phys.Lett.B490, 53 (2000)
  18. “Comparison of Strangeness Production from p+p and A+A Collisions between 2 and 160 AGeV”, J.C. Dunlop, C.A. Ogilvie, Phys. Rev. C61, 031901 (2000)
  19. “Excitation Function of K+ and p+ Production in Au+Au Reactions at 2A to 10 AGeV”, L. Ahle et al., Phys.Lett.B476:1 (2000)
  20. “Au + Au Collisions in Experiment E917 at the Brookhaven AGS”, B.B. Back et al., Nucl.Phys.A663:757-760, 2000
  21. “STAR Time Projection Chamber”, K.H. Ackermann et al., Nucl. Phys. A661, 681 (1999).
  22. “Production of Phi Mesons in Au+Au Collisions at the AGS”, B.B. Back et al., Nucl. Phys. A661, 506, (1999).
  23. “Particle Production at the AGS: An Excitation Function”, B.B. Back et al., Nucl. Phys. A661, 472, (1999).
  24. “Results from Experiment E917 for Au+Au Collisions at the AGS”, B.B. Back et al., Nucl. Phys. A661, 75, (1999).
  25. “Proton and Deuteron Production in Au+Au Collisions at 11.6 AGeV/c”, L. Ahle et al., Phys. Rev C60:064901 (1999)
  26. “Centrality Dependence of Kaon Yields in Si+A and Au+Au Collisions at the AGS”, L. Ahle et al., Phys. Rev C60:044904 (1999)
  27. Dense, Strongly Interacting Matter: Strangeness in Heavy-ion Collisions 1-10 AGeV”, C.A. Ogilvie, J. Phys. G 25, 159 (1999).
  28. “Strangeness Production in High-Density Baryon Matter”, R. Ganz et al., J. Phys G 25, 247 (1999).
  29. “Simultaneous Multiplicity and Forward Energy Characterization of Particle Spectra in Au+Au Collisions at 11.6AGeV/c”, L. Ahle et al., Phys. Rev. C 59, 2173 (1999)
  30. “Kaon Production and Multi-body Collisions in Dense Hadronic Matter.” CA Ogilvie, Phys. Lett. B. 436, 238 (1998).
  31. “Kaon Production in Au+Au Reactions at 11.6 AGeV/c.” L. Ahle, et al.,Phys. Rev. C 58, 3523 (1998).
  32. “Breakup Conditions of Projectile Spectators from Dynamical Observables” M. Begemann-Blaich et al., Phys. Rev. C 58, 1639 (1998)
  33. “Anti-proton Production in Au+Au Reactions at 11.6AGeV/c." L. Ahle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2650 (1998)
  34. "Particle Production at High Baryon Density in Central Au + Au Reactions at 11.6 A GeV/c." L.Ahle et al., Phys. Rev. C 57, 466, (1998).
  35. "Proton, Deuteron and Triton Emission at Target Rapidity in Au + Au Collisions at 10.2 A GeV." L.Ahle et al., Phys. Rev. C 57, 1416 (1998).
  36. “Recent Developments on the STAR Detector System at RHIC”, H. Weiman et al., Nucl. Phys. A638, 559 (1998).
  37. ”Centrality and Collision System Dependence of Anti-Proton Production from p+A to Au+Au Collisions at AGS Energies”, L. Ahle et al., Nucl. Phys. A638, 427 (1998).
  38. ”An Excitation Function at the AGS : Probing the Dynamics of Heavy-ion Collisions”, R. Seto et al., Nucl. Phys. A638, 407 (1998).
  39. “Review of Experiments E866 and E917 @AGS”, C.A. Ogilvie et al., Nucl. Phys. A638, 57c (1998).
  40. “Kaon Production in Au+Au Collisions at the AGS", C.A. Ogilvie et al, Nucl. Phys. A630, 571c (1998)
  41. "Strangeness Production at the AGS", C.A. Ogilvie, J. Phys. G 23, 1803 (1997)
  42. "Universality of Spectator Fragmentation at Relativistic Bombarding Energies." A. SchüttAuf, et al., Nucl. Phys. A607 457-486 (1996).
  43. “Squeeze-out of nuclear matter in Au+Au collisions.” Tsang MB, et al, Phys Rev 1962 (1996)
  44. Particle Production in Au+Au Collisions from BNL E866”, Y. Akiba et al, Nucl. Phys. A610, 139c (1996).
  45. The Centrality Dependence of the Source Size for Au+Au Collisions at the AGS”, M.D. Baker et al, Nucl. Phys. A610, 213c (1996).
  46. “Azimuthal Distributions and Collective Motion in Intermediate-Energy Heavy Ion Collisions.” Wilson, WK, et al. Phys. Rev. C51 3136 (1995)
  47. "Fragment Flow and the Multifragmentation Phase Space." G.J. Kunde, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74:38-41 (1995).
  48. "Multifragmentation of Spectators in Relativistic Heavy Ion Reactions." A.S. Botvina, et al., Nucl. Phys. A584:737-756 (1995)
  49. "Multifragmentation and Flow: Peripheral vs. Central Collisions." J. Pochodzalla, et al., Nucl. Phys. A583 553c-560c (1995).
  50. “Recent Results From E866.” L Ahle. et al., Nucl Phys A 590:(1-2) C258 (1995)
  51. "Collective Expansion in Central Au+Au Collisions", W.C. Hsi et al, Phys. Rev. Lett 73, 3367 (1994).
  52. "The STAR experiment at the Relativistic Heavy-ion Collider." STAR Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A566 277c (1994).
  53. "Onset of Nuclear Vaporization in 197Au+197Au Collisions." M.B. Tsang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 71, 1502 (1993).
  54. “Disassembly of Highly Excited Nuclei - From Evaporation to Vaporization.” WFJ Muller, et al., Prog. Part Nucl. Phys. 696 (1993)
  55. "QMD Simulation of Multifragment Production in Heavy-ion Collisions at E/A=600 MeV." M. Begemann-Blaich, et al., Phys. Rev. C 48 610 (1993).
  56. "Charge Correlations as a Probe of Nuclear Disassembly." P. Kreutz, et al., Nucl. Phys. A556 672 (1993).
  57. "Multi-fragment Events as a Probe of Nuclear Disassembly." C.A. Ogilvie, et al., Nucl. Phys. A553 271c (1993).
  58. "Statistical Fragmentation of Au Projectiles at E/A=600 MeV." J. Hubele, et al., Phys. Rev. C 46 R1577 (1992).
  59. "Disappearance of Flow as a Probe of the Nuclear Equation of State." D. Krofcheck, et al., Phys. Rev. C 46 1416 (1992).
  60. "Impact Parameter Dependence of High Energy Gamma Ray Production in Heavy-ion Collisions." T. Reposeur, et al., Phys. Lett. B276 418 (1992).
  61. "Reaction Plane Determination Using Azimuthal Correlations." W.K. Wilson, R. Lacey, C.A. Ogilvie, G.D. Westfall, Phys. Rev. C 45 738 (1992).
  62. "Correlations in Mulifragment Events" U. Lynen et al., Nucl. Phys. A545, 329c (1992).
  63. "The Rise and Fall of Multi-fragment Emission in 197Au + C, Al, and Cu Reactions at E/A=600 MeV." W. Trautmann, et al., Nucl. Phys. A538 473c (1992).
  64. "Fragmentation of Au projectiles: from Evaporation to Total Disassembly." J.Hubele, et al., Z. Phys. A. 40 263 (1991).
  65. "The Rise and Fall of Multi-fragment Emission." C.A. Ogilvie, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett  67 1214 (1991).
  66. "Impact-parameter Dependence of Participant Energy Spectra measured in Symmetric Heavy-ion Collisions." C.A. PruneAu, et al., Nucl. Phys. A534 204 (1991).
  67. "Bragg Curve Spectroscopy in a 4p Geometry." D.A. Cebra, et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A300 518 (1991).
  68. "Mean Field Deflection in Peripheral Heavy-Ion Collisions." W.K. Wilson, et al., Phys. Rev. C 43 2696 (1991).
  69. "Observation of a Minimum in Collective Flow for Ar+V Collisions." D. Krofcheck, et al., Phys. Rev. C 43 350 (1991).
  70. “Consistent Description of the (T, HE-3) Reaction for A-12-89.” CN Pinder, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 533: 48 (1991)
  71. “Collective Flow, Multi-Fragment Emission and Azimuthal Asymmetries in Intermediate Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions.” GD Westfall, et al., Phys. Script A, T32 207 (1990)
  72. “Disappearance of Flow and its Relevance to Nuclear-Matter Physics.” CA Ogilvie, et al., Phys. Rev. C 42 R14, (1990)
  73. “Event-Shape Analysis - Sequential Versus Simultaneous Multifragment Emission.” DA Cebra, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 64 2249 (1990)
  74. “Azimuthal Asymmetry in AR+V Collision From E/A=35 to 85 MEV.” WK Wilson, et al.,  Phys Rev C41 R1884 (1990)
  75. “Automated Analysis of CCD Recorded Nuclear Collisions in a Streamer Chamber.” D Krofcheck, et al., Nucl Inst. Met. A288 506 (1990)
  76. “Transverse Collective Motion In Intermediate-Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions.” CA Ogilvie, et al., Phys Rev C 40 2599 (1989)
  77. “Longitudinal Collective Motion in Intermediate-Energy Heavy Ion Collisions.” CA Ogilvie, et al., Phys. Lett. B 231 38 (1989)
  78. “Disappearance of Flow in heavy Ion Collisions.” D. Krofcheck, et al., Phys Rev Lett 63 2031 (1989)
  79. “Determination of the Impact Vector in Intermediate Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions.” CA Ogilvie, et al., Phys Rev C 40 663 (1989)
  80. “C-12 Induced Single Particle Transfer-Reactions at E/A=50 MEV.” JS Winfield, et al., Phys. Rev. C 39 1401 (1989)
  81. “Triton-Induced and Helion Induced Cluster Pick-Up Reactions on C-12(13).” PJ Simmonds, et al., J. Phys.  Nucl. Part. 15 370 (1989)
  82. “CCD Camera System for Use With a Streamer Chamber.” SA Angius. et al., Nucl. Inst. Meth. A 273 290 (1988)
  83. “(O-16, C-14) Reaction on Some Even N=28 Isotones.” CA Ogilvie, et al., Phys Rev C 39 152 (1989)
  84. “A Study of Proton Pairing Vibrations in the FP-Shell Using  C-14 Induced 2-Proton Pickup Reactions.” D Barker, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 4485 172 (1988)
  85. “The Deformation of NA-23 From Inelastic Alpha Scattering.” MC Mannion, et al., J. Phys. G. Nucl. Part. 14:(8) 1101 (1988)
  86. “The Interaction of 38 MEV Tritons with C-12-13 Collective Model Studies and Single-Nucleon Transfer-Reactions.” PJ Simmonds, et al., Nucl Phys. A 482:(3-4) 678 (1988)
  87. “Inelastic Effects in the MG-24(T, Alpha)NA-23 Reaction at 33 MEV.” MC Mannion, et al., J. Phys. G. Nucl. Part. 14:(5) 643 (1988)
  88. “Energy-Dependence of 12C+12C Single-Neutron Transfer Cross-Sections.” JS Winfield, et al., Phys. Lett. B 203:(4) 348 (1988)
  89. “The C-12(T, Alpha) B-11 Reaction at 33 MEV.” PB Foot, et al., J. Phys. G. Nucl. Part. 13:(12) 1540 (1987)
  90. “Elastic Scattering of 33 MEV Tritons and Isospin Dependence of Mass-3 Optical-Potential.” JBA England, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 475:(3) 438 (1987)
  91. “36 MeV Triton-Induced Charge Exchange: Mass Measurements and Energy-levels of Neutron-rich Nuclei and Charge-Exchange Mechanism”, K.I. Pearce et al., Phys.Rev. C 35, 1617 (1987)
  92. “No Two-proton Strength to 72Ge(02+)”, H.T. Fortune et al., Phys. Rev. C 35, 1603 (1987)
  93. “Spectroscopy of 47K and Proton Core-Excitations in 48Ca from the 48C(t,alpha)47K Reaction,” C.A. Ogilvie et al., Nucl. Phys. A465, 445 (1987)
  94. “A study of 52V with the 51V(t,d) Reaction” O. Karban et al., Nucl. Phys. A472 189 (1987)
  95. “36 MeV Triton Inelastic Scattering and One-Nucleon Transfer Reactions”, K.I. Pearce et al., Nucl. Phys. A467, 215 (1987)
  96. “Elastic Scattering of 36 MeV Tritons”, K.I. Pearce et al, J. Phys. G 12, 979 (1986).
  97. “Symmetric Fission of 24Mg Following Inelastic Scattering”, B.R. Fulton et al, Phys. Lett. B 181, 233 (1986).
  98. “Apparatus for Bronchial Challenge with Cold Air”, C.A. Ogilvie, A. McD Haresnape, E.A. Harris, Med. & Biol. Eng.. & Comput. 21, 235 (1983)

 

d. Refereed Conference Proceedings

  1. First Results From RHIC-PHENIX. By PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al.). 2001.  Pramana 57:355-369,2001
  2. “Hadron production in Au+Au collisions at 4 AGeV from AGS-E866.” T Chujo, et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 129 177 (1997)
  3. "Multifragmentation in Peripheral Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions." W. Trautmann, et al., Acta Phys.Polon. B25:425-442 (1994).
  4.  “Directed Transverse-Momentum and Multiparticle Emission in Intermediate Energy Nucleus Nucleus Collisions.” GD Westfall, et al., Phys. Scripta T32 207 (1990)

 

f. Non-refereed publications

  1. “E917 Results On Strangeness Production in Au + Au Collisions at AGS. By E917 Collaboration (B.B. Back et al.). Jul 2000. Published in *Osaka 2000, High energy physics, vol. 1* 573-577
  2. “Overview and Status of the STAR detector at RHIC” W. Christie for the STAR collaboration, proceeding of the 15th Winter Workshop, Jan 1999, Park City UT, Advances in Nuclear Dynamics, Plenum Press (1999)
  1. “Probing the QCD Phase Boundary with Finite Collision Systems” T. Trainor for the STAR collaboration, proceeding of the 15th Winter Workshop, Jan 1999, Park City UT, Advances in Nuclear Dynamics, Plenum Press (1999)
  2. “Data Sets for High-pt Physics with the STAR Detector”, W.B. Christie for the STAR Collaboration, proceedings of Hard Parton Physics in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, Mar 1-5 1999, Brookhaven Lab, Upton NY, Report BNL-52574.
  3. “Angular Correlations at High-pt”, C.A. Ogilvie for the STAR Collaboration, proceedings of Hard Parton Physics in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, Mar 1-5 1999, Brookhaven Lab, Upton NY, Report BNL-52574.
  4. “Studying Parton Propagation Dynamics in STAR”, T.M Cormier for the STAR Collaboration, proceedings of Hard Parton Physics in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, Mar 1-5 1999, Brookhaven Lab, Upton NY, Report BNL-52574.
  5. “Physics with the STAR RICH”, G. Kunde for the STAR Collaboration, proceedings of Hard Parton Physics in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, Mar 1-5 1999, Brookhaven Lab, Upton NY, Report BNL-52574.
  6. “Polarization Studies with W’s at STAR”, A. Ogawa for the STAR Collaboration, proceedings of Hard Parton Physics in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, Mar 1-5 1999, Brookhaven Lab, Upton NY, Report BNL-52574. 
  7. “A direct extraction of DG with STAR”, J. Sowinski for the STAR Collaboration, proceedings of Hard Parton Physics in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, Mar 1-5 1999, Brookhaven Lab, Upton NY, Report BNL-52574.
  8. “The Year-One Physics Capabilities of STAR” H. Caines for the STAR collaboration, Proceedings of the Relativistic Heavy-ion Mini-symposium at the APS Centennial Meeting, World Scientific (1999)
  9. “Expected Trigger Rates of High-pt jets and Direct Photons in the STAR EMC” M.B. Tonjes for the STAR collaboration, Proceedings of the Relativistic Heavy-ion Mini-symposium at the APS Centennial Meeting, World Scientific (1999)
  10. “High-pt physics with STAR” K. Turner for the STAR collaboration, Proceedings of the Relativistic Heavy-ion Mini-symposium at the APS Centennial Meeting, World Scientific (1999) 
  11.  “HBT Studies with E917 at the AGS: Status Report”, B Holzman et al., 15th Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics, nucl-ex/9904013
  12. Strangeness Production in Au+Au Collisions at the AGS:”, W.C. Chang et al., 15th Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics, nucl-ex/9904010
  13. Results from E917 at the AGS”, B.B. Back et al., 15th Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics, nucl-ex/9904006
  14. The Rise and Fall of Multi-fragment Emission” C.A. Ogilvie et al, 19th International Workshop on Gross Properties of Nuclei, Hirschegg 1991

 

g. Work Submitted

1.      “System, Centrality and Transverse Mass Dependence of Two Pion Correlation Radii in Heavy-Ion Collisions at 11.6-A-GEV and 14.6-A-GEV”, By E802 Collaboration (L. Ahle et al.). Apr 2002. 17pp. nucl-ex/0204001

<