STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

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

Hello Nu,

I have changed it accordingly and uploaded it : https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/FAIRNess_2024_ver3.pdf

Thank you

Best,

Rutik Manikandhan

PhD Candidate, Experimental Nuclear High Energy Group

Physics Dept.

University of Houston

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:10 AM Nu Xu <nxu AT lbl.gov> wrote:

Hi Rutik,

S38: Look at S25, there is clear deviation at 19.6 GeV for all model calculations.
Please change the statement to “C4/C2 from top 5% Au+Au collisions: Clear deviation at 19.6 GeV for all non-CP model calculations observed”

Regards,
Nu

> On Sep 17, 2024, at 8:55 AM, Rutik Manikandhan <manikandhan.rutik AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>