List for the 2014 Hot QCD White Paper Writing Group

["Frawley, Anthony" <afrawley AT fsu.edu>]

Dear Aaron and All,

I don't think that adding a lot of specific details on how to achieve 
experimental goals is called for, but I would argue that "Such measurements 
require high luminosity operation and new instrumentation at RHIC and the 
LHC…." is rather too unspecific, even for an executive summary.

It seems to me that one would at least like to convey the information at the 
executive summary level that:
- A new detector is proposed at RHIC that can make unbiased jet measurements.
- Accelerator improvements at the LHC will result in a staggering amount of 
data by the end of Run 3.

I am not a jet expert, so you may have other major points to add, but I think 
it is important to emphasize at the executive summary level that we are 
talking about major improvements to our experimental ability, not incremental 
ones.

Best regards
Tony

________________________________________
From: hot-qcd-whitepaper-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov 
[hot-qcd-whitepaper-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] on behalf of Aaron Angerami 
[angerami AT cern.ch]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 5:50 AM
To: List for the 2014 Hot QCD White Paper Writing Group
Subject: Re: [Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l] feedback for WP summary draft

Dear Uli and others,

I agree that the current document has an imbalance which can generate a 
perception issue. However if we continue to add text so there is an 
equivalent amount of detail/sentence on each subject, aren’t we moving 
further away from the original executive-summary-style format we were 
originally going for? If we choose to do this, what is the scope we are 
aiming for and what do we want the text to accomplish? Would it be easier if 
we pared down some of the longer sections, by removing some of the specifics, 
and focus stating physics goals and what experimental/theoretical 
developments are needed to achieve them? We can certainly add more text on 
jets and specific examples of how we can achieve experimental goals- which is 
lacking in the current version, e.g. Jamie’s point about sPHENIX. I’m happy 
to contribute something, but rather than just write some text it would help 
to have some scope.

>From the physics perspective I think the jet section is improved from what 
>we initially sent in, but the narrative is phrased backwards. Significant 
>advances in our understanding have been sourced by our enhanced experimental 
>capabilities to measure fully reconstructed jets in HI collisions and 
>directly observe energy loss in individual events. It was not that long ago 
>that people told us such measurements were impossible. In turn those 
>measurements have inspired theoretical developments that have also helped 
>improve our understanding. I would argue that during run I of LHC operations 
>we’ve done a lot of work understanding how to reconstruct jets in the his 
>environment and stand poised to exploit this understanding to do precise 
>measurements with high statistics in run II.

Cheers,
Aaron

On Sep 11, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Frawley, Anthony <afrawley AT fsu.edu> wrote:

> Dear Uli and Krishna,
>
> I have a question about the fourth paragraph after the recommendation. This 
> seems to be an overview of what will be required to answer the questions 
> posed in the prior paragraph, with the rest of the document presumably 
> containing more details.
>
> However, point 1) "the completion of the program to measure the diffusion 
> coefficient of heavy quarks" is not elaborated on in any of the following 
> text. Was this intentional? Conversely, the screening of heavy quarkonia 
> has a fairly long paragraph in the text but is not mentioned in the 
> overview.
>
> Should we have some text on heavy quark measurements? Should we add 
> quarkonia to the overview paragraph?
>
> Thanks
> Tony
>
> ________________________________________
> From: hot-qcd-whitepaper-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov 
> [hot-qcd-whitepaper-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] on behalf of Ulrich Heinz 
> [heinz AT mps.ohio-state.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:06 PM
> To: List for the 2014 Hot QCD White Paper Writing Group
> Subject: Re: [Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l] feedback for WP summary draft
>
> I  completely agree with Jamie’s and Gunther’s and everybody else’s 
> comments and am the first to acknowledge that the draft is unbalanced. It 
> came out that way because of what Krishna and I were given to work with 
> (and I am not criticizing anybody for sticking or not sticking to the 
> agreed length limits — all input was very useful and contained stuff that 
> should appear somewhere in the White Paper) and the limited time budget at 
> our disposal.
>
> It would be good if we could take some corrective action by adding to the 
> document (within limits) where it appear anemic. I agree with Paul that it 
> is hopeless to try to achieve balance by paring down the rest, at least not 
> before Saturday. We can try to do some paring after the Town Meeting, after 
> we have fleshed out the body of the WP which will give us a better feeling 
> for how describe things in the most concise possible form.
>
> So I ask those of you representing areas that you feel are underexposed in 
> the present draft to provide improved pieces of text to be swapped into the 
> document,
>
> Best,
> Uli
>
> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Gunther M Roland <rolandg AT mit.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Uli et al -
>>
>> I think I agree with Jamie's concern regarding the overall balance between 
>> the
>> different sections, and it might make sense to do a bit of rebalancing 
>> before
>> the document is discussed in a wider audience. It would be difficult for a
>> first-time reader not to perceive some kind of message about emphasis in 
>> the
>> relative length of the sections. In that sense it was maybe unfortunate 
>> that
>> the authors of the jet paragraph's took the marching orders more
>> literally than
>> those of some other sections, given the clear connection of jet-related
>> physics
>> to the long-range future of RHIC and the LHC program for the next decade.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gunther
>>
>> Quoting Jamie Nagle <jamie.nagle AT colorado.edu>:
>>
>>> Hello Ulrich (cc Hot QCD White Paper Writing Group),
>>>
>>> Thanks to everyone for quickly putting together this first draft Executive
>>> Summary.  I quite like much of the introductory material and many of the
>>> paragraphs are well crafted.
>>>
>>> That said, I have a rather significant concern that was also mentioned in
>>> your earlier email - the imbalance of length and topics in the Executive
>>> Summary.   The length will convey information to the community.   For
>>> example, there is more text on the Chiral Magnetic Effect alone as 
>>> compared
>>> to the sPHENIX jet physics case.    In fact the jet case is written in a
>>> very narrow manner as opposed to connecting to the larger set of
>>> fundamental questions. In fact, the name sPHENIX (effectively an entirely
>>> new detector in the field) is only mentioned in the Upsilon paragraph.
>>>
>>> I am not sure what to suggest on a short couple day time scale.     Maybe
>>> there is disagreement from the Writing Committee - but within the RHIC
>>> plans there are two main thrusts:  BES II and sPHENIX, but one would not
>>> get that impression at all from this text.   If this is presented as is at
>>> the town meeting, I will certainly object to the emphasis and what is
>>> deemed most important in terms of future investment.
>>>
>>> One other note, the title "Exploring the Properties" seems too generic and
>>> could have been put in place in any LRP.   Should the Writing Group work
>>> towards something more specific?
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Ulrich Heinz <heinz AT mps.ohio-state.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear friends,
>>>>
>>>> I have received only a very small number of suggestions for changes to 
>>>> the
>>>> draft summary I sent around Monday morning. I made corresponding changes
>>>> (all minor, you locate see them by looking for commented-out text in the
>>>> attached tex file). We would like to post this in the next couple of days
>>>> on the Town Meeting web site for participants to browse ahead of the
>>>> discussions there. Are you OK with posting the present version? If not,
>>>> please send me your comments and constructive suggestions for improvement
>>>> (if possible with suggested replacement text included) as soon as 
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Uli
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l mailing list
>>>> Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/hot-qcd-whitepaper-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ||--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> || James L. Nagle
>>> || Professor of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder
>>> || EMAIL:   jamie.nagle AT colorado.edu
>>> || SKYPE:  jamie-nagle
>>> || WEB:      http://spot.colorado.edu/~naglej
>>> ||---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l mailing list
>> Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/hot-qcd-whitepaper-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l mailing list
> Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/hot-qcd-whitepaper-l
> _______________________________________________
> Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l mailing list
> Hot-qcd-whitepaper-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/hot-qcd-whitepaper-l