STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Rutik Manikandhan <manikandhan.rutik AT gmail.com>]

Hello Nu,

Thank you for your comments.

Uploaded them here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/FAIRNess2024_ver2.pdf

Here are my replies:

1) S3 bullet 4 and 5: what do we mean by "420 mu_B" and "750 mu_B”?
    2nd bullet: What do we mean by "Analytical crossover …"?
    From the figure on the right we see that RHIC collider energies go upto 420 mu_B (MeV) and RHIC FXT goes upto 750 mu_B (MeV) (at 3 GeV)

    We mean by Analytical crossover, that there isn't a rapid change in entropy or other thermal variables when there's a phase change from hadronic to QGP,

     A comparison between RHIC data and lattice QCD (LQCD) calculations disfavours the possible QCD critical point being       

     located at µB/T ≤ 2. 
2) S21-24: I think you took the slides of Misha Stephanov SQM24 presentation, please also add that to these slides;
    Done.
3) S34 (same as in S35, S37): For the FXT data, our acceptance in eta is -2 < eta < 0. Why do you show in the figure -0.5 < eta_{cm} < 0.5? This looks like from collider data to me.
     I show -0.5 < eta_{cm} < 0.5 because for FXT energies (3.0 and 3.2 GeV) the mid-pseudorapidity isnt at 0, instead we go +/- 0.5 around midrapidity (to be consistent with previous analysis) hence this notation.
4) S38 - bullet 2: I am confused. We do observe top 5% data of C4/C2 deviate from non-CP model calculations, right?

    I agree, and the highest deviation is at 20 GeV but that too is 3 sigma. I have changed the sentence to "slight deviation above non-CP models"
     Bullet 6: I am not sure what do we intend to say here. I suggest remove this bullet;

     Removed.

Best,

Rutik Manikandhan

PhD Candidate, Experimental Nuclear High Energy Group

Physics Dept.

University of Houston

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:28 AM Nu Xu <nxu AT lbl.gov> wrote:

Hi Rutik and All,

Thank you for the updated draft. I still have few questions and comments about the updated version:
1) S3 bullet 4 and 5: what do we mean by "420 mu_B" and "750 mu_B”?
    2nd bullet: What do we mean by "Analytical crossover …"?

2) S21-24: I think you took the slides of Misha Stephanov SQM24 presentation, please also add that to these slides;

3) S34 (same as in S35, S37): For the FXT data, our acceptance in eta is -2 < eta < 0. Why do you show in the figure -0.5 < eta_{cm} < 0.5? This looks like from collider data to me.

4) S38 - bullet 2: I am confused. We do observe top 5% data of C4/C2 deviate from non-CP model calculations, right?
     Bullet 6: I am not sure what do we intend to say here. I suggest remove this bullet;

That is all. I sign off after you take care of these issues.

Thank you,
Nu


> On Sep 11, 2024, at 10:29 AM, Rutik Manikandhan <manikandhan.rutik AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Nu,
> Thank you for your responses, I have made the changes and uploaded them : https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/FAIRNess2024_ver1.pdf
>
> 1)S3-last bullet: ==> "CBM experiment at FAIR extends ...";
> Done
> 2) S10-1st bullet: remove 'consistent with model expectation with a Critical
> Point' as there is no calculations yet;
> Done
> 3) S13: I am not sure that I understand the title of the slide 'Centrality
> resolution ...'? I suggest remove the slide as the next one is the same;
> Done
> 4) S14 - point 2: weak effect of the centrality resolution is on for "C4/C2
> from centrality collisions". Please make it clear;
> Done
> 5) S15: this shows the BES-I data, not needed;
> Done
> 6) S23-27: add reference for these slides;
> Done
> 7) S28 - 2nd bullet: I am not sure we can claim the 'qualitative agreements
> with factorial cumulants for critical signatures'. Remove it;
> Done
> 8) S32-35: Those discussions seem not used in later discussions, why do we
> need them?
> These slides are used to introduce a baseline for these pT correlations, because the non-monotonicity is claimed
> with a baseline which is a constant as a function of energy.
> 9) S37: (i) based on what we can claim '200 GeV partially thermalized'?  What
> do we mean by 'partially thermalization'? (ii) Given the large differences
> between data and UrQMD results in the RHIC energy region, how can we conclude
> 'UrQMD underpredicts data consistently at all energies'?
> (i) The fact that BL cannot reproduce the data, implies partial thermalization
>      I added some more info on S28 to introduce partial thermalization
> (ii) Changed to "UrQMD deviates from Data"
> 10) S39: I am not sure what is the point of discussion for this slide;
>      This slide takes us back to the discussion on baseline, there's a theoretical prediction for the baseline,
>      and at FXT energies we return to the baseline.
> 11) S40: what is the conclusion of the slide?
>      We are showing that the correlator has long range rapidity correlations, and these imply they are correlations
>       from early stages of the collision, this was not done for the collider energies, so it's interesting to see its implications,
>       how the early correlations would differ from hadronic interaction/partonic interactions.
> 12) S42-last bullet: What do we want to say with this bullet?
>        What we require are further baseline calculations, Boltzmann-Langevin like calculations for these energies,
>        so we are asking for inputs from the theory community
>
>
> Best,
> Rutik Manikandhan
> PhD Candidate, Experimental Nuclear High Energy Group
> Physics Dept.
> University of Houston
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 3:34 AM <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov> wrote:
> Dear star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Nu Xu ( nxu AT lbl.gov ) has commented on a material originally submitted by 
> Rutik Manikandhan ( manikandhan.rutik AT gmail.com ) at
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/FAIRness-2024/Recent-Highlights-STAR-Experiment-0
>
> Comment:
> Hi Rutik, below are my suggestions/questions about your talk 
> FAIRNess2024_ver0.pdf:
> 1)S3-last bullet: ==> "CBM experiment at FAIR extends ...";
> 2) S10-1st bullet: remove 'consistent with model expectation with a Critical 
> Point' as there is no calculations yet;
> 3) S13: I am not sure that I understand the title of the slide 'Centrality 
> resolution ...'? I suggest remove the slide as the next one is the same;
> 4) S14 - point 2: weak effect of the centrality resolution is on for "C4/C2 
> from centrality collisions". Please make it clear;
> 5) S15: this shows the BES-I data, not needed;
> 6) S23-27: add reference for these slides;
> 7) S28 - 2nd bullet: I am not sure we can claim the 'qualitative agreements 
> with factorial cumulants for critical signatures'. Remove it;
> 8) S32-35: Those discussions seem not used in later discussions, why do we 
> need them?
> 9) S37: (i) based on what we can claim '200 GeV partially thermalized'?  What 
> do we mean by 'partially thermalization'? (ii) Given the large differences 
> between dat aand UrQMD result in the RHIC enregy region, how can we conclude 
> 'UrQMD underpredicts data consistently at all energies'?
> 10) S39: I am not sure what is the point of discussion for this slide;
> 11) S40: what is the conclusion of the slide?
> 12) S42-last bullet: What do we want to say with this bullet?
>
> That is all for now.
> Regards,
> Nu
>
>
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact 
> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov