Star-dilepton-l mailing list

["Xu, Zhangbu" <xzb AT bnl.gov>]

Dear Tetyana and Rongrong:

 

My points are:

 

1. We specify a fit range which we should apply to both our data and NA60.
   it is not about what NA60 did before. Our data clearly have lower statistics, and
   large errors. What we try to do (and NA60 should as well) is to use our data
   to obtain the best measurements we can achieve. That is the range we
   proposed and used. Berndt Mueller pointed to use that NA60 used a different range
   and our QM presentation with NA60 Temperature probably should not be used.
   We confirm that he is right. There is no reason why we should revert back.
2. NA60 data are public. They obtained T fit from different ranges with different numbers.

This is consistent with the whole picture that the LMR is dominated by radiation from
around phase transition and IMR from QGP. There is not a single number at IMR with
different range which anyone can claim is a gold-plated and should not be changed.
Unless NA60 has a peer-reviewed paper provides convincing evidence why their fit and
range are the best representation of the temperature of QGP, and should be used
by others who use their data.

 

In the end, I really do not understand what the fussy is about NA60 demanding what they want.

 

Zhangbu

 

From: "Galatyuk, Tetyana Prof. Dr." <T.Galatyuk AT gsi.de>
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 4:40 PM
To: "Ma, Rongrong" <marr AT bnl.gov>, "Xu, Zhangbu" <xzb AT bnl.gov>
Cc: "zy35 AT rice.edu" <zy35 AT rice.edu>, "Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "Brandenburg, Daniel" <brandenburg.89 AT osu.edu>
Subject: Re: NA60 IMR temperature

 

Hi All,

 

>The number 205+/-12 MeV is the temperature from fitting 1.1-2.0 GeV by NA60. This is the one published, and commented during HP. We actually used this >number originally at QM. 

 

Right (just commented on this in my previous mail) and one could use this number in the figure if decision is to present ONLY published values of T and not the one from the presentation of NA60 collaboration.

 

 

>As I understand from Zaochen, he got the number "246+/-15" from Bernt Muller by fitting 1.2-2.5 GeV after QM, and showed the number at sQM. The EM speaker >on Monday used this version, and got commented. Have we (mainly Zaochen) actually done the fit to verify Bernt's number?

1. it is important that the final NA60 data are used for any fit. The final NA60 data points for LMR+IMR I have provided in the text file, but I am still not sure that this data set was used to perform the fits.

2. I do think that number was cross checked and not “Bernt Muller by fitting 1.2-2.5 GeV after QM” is used. Would be strange to use number provided by Bernt Muller and not the one presented by NA60 collaboration in the talk  … I didn’t look to the whole history of presentations discussed at the working group, but in the one from August 2, 2022 I see that Zaochen made a big effort to  check various fits, so I believe this is NOT a value from a private communication with Bernt Müller. Zaochen can comments on this better.

 

>Why does NA60 stop at 2.4 GeV, but not including the last point at 2.5 GeV?

I am not sure about this. What we know is that in the high mass pre-equilibrium dileptons also contribute to the spectrum and change the slope. It may be that the choice of 1.1 – 2 GeV was selected as range which is less effected by pre-equilibrium contribution.

 

Cheers,

Tetyana

 

 

 

 

From: "Ma, Rongrong" <marr AT bnl.gov>
Date: Wednesday, 29. March 2023 at 21:53
To: "Xu, Zhangbu" <xzb AT bnl.gov>
Cc: "Galatyuk, Tetyana Prof. Dr." <T.Galatyuk AT gsi.de>, "zy35 AT rice.edu" <zy35 AT rice.edu>, "Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "Brandenburg, Daniel" <brandenburg.89 AT osu.edu>
Subject: Re: NA60 IMR temperature

 

Hello Zhangbu

 

The number 205+/-12 MeV is the temperature from fitting 1.1-2.0 GeV by NA60. This is the one published, and commented during HP. We actually used this number originally at QM. 

 

As I understand from Zaochen, he got the number "246+/-15" from Bernt Muller by fitting 1.2-2.5 GeV after QM, and showed the number at sQM. The EM speaker on Monday used this version, and got commented. Have we (mainly Zaochen) actually done the fit to verify Bernt's number?

 

When NA60 fitted from 1.1-2.4 GeV, they got 230+/-10 MeV. Can we verify this as well? Maybe Tetyana knows this. Why does NA60 stop at 2.4 GeV, but not including the last point at 2.5 GeV?

 

Thanks. 

 

Best

Rongrong

 

On Mar 29, 2023, at 2:31 PM, Xu, Zhangbu <xzb AT bnl.gov> wrote:

 

Hi, all: 

 

So the range from Spethz is different from our fit and different from what the claim at HP. 

I would insist that you do not change our fit. 

If they believe that our number is incorrect, publish the result in peer reviewed paper. 

---

From: Star-dilepton-l <star-dilepton-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Galatyuk, Tetyana Prof. Dr. <T.Galatyuk AT gsi.de>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 1:08:38 PM
To: Ma, Rongrong <marr AT bnl.gov>; zy35 AT rice.edu <zy35 AT rice.edu>
Cc: Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov <Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; Brandenburg, Daniel <brandenburg.89 AT osu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Star-dilepton-l] NA60 IMR temperature

 

Dear Rongrong, All,

 

Indeed we have started this discussion yesterday after the comment to the EM talk. I actually found the “official” document, which is the talks of H.J. Specht at the ECT* Workshop we organized in 2013 where these numbers were presented. We also checked with Gianluca that there is no publication of this number and therefore one shall refer to the ECT* talk, H.J.Specht, ECT* Trento  2013: please see print screen of the slide below (230 +- 10 MeV for the fit range 1.1 – 2.4 GeV). As stated already before, I also strongly recommend we use the numbers extracted by the NA60 collaboration. I also used official NA60 value when I included NA60 (and HADES) dilepton points to the QCD phase diagram and it would be not good to have different numbers.

 

One more point, also addressed already, please remove direct photon T from the figure, they have nothing to do with the true fireball T! You know well that when taking into account radial expansion velocity of the system (which you have to do when you fit pT spectrum!) will bring BOTH phenix and alice results down to ~155 MeV.

 

Cheers,

Tetyana 

 

<image001.png>

 

 

 

 

From: "Ma, Rongrong" <marr AT bnl.gov>
Date: Wednesday, 29. March 2023 at 18:32
To: "zy35 AT rice.edu" <zy35 AT rice.edu>
Cc: "Galatyuk, Tetyana Prof. Dr." <T.Galatyuk AT gsi.de>, "Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "Brandenburg, Daniel" <brandenburg.89 AT osu.edu>
Subject: NA60 IMR temperature

 

Hello Zaochen, All 

 

I talked with Gianluca Usai from NA60 today, and he showed me that the temperature from fitting IMR of 1.2-2.5 GeV/c is 230 +/- 10 MeV, which should be treated as the official number from NA60. Could you update the T vs. muB figure that you sent to me, as well as those on your preliminary figure page? We need to make sure this number if shown from now on to avoid any further complains. My talk is on Friday, so I would appreciate if you can update the figure at your earliest convenience. Thanks. 

 

Best

Rongrong

 

On Mar 28, 2023, at 12:02 PM, Zaochen Ye <zy35 AT rice.edu> wrote:

 

Dear Tetyana,

 

Please find the overleaf link of the paper in your email, and let me know if you can see it or not.

 

Best,

Zaochen

 

On Mar 28, 2023, at 10:15 AM, Galatyuk, Tetyana Prof. Dr. <T.Galatyuk AT gsi.de> wrote:

 

Dear Daniel, All,

 

also today i am blocked with HP2023.

What would be important you discuss in the meeting today and actually we had this discussion in the past already (sorry that I couldn't follow our dilepton meetings):

 

• The way T extracted for NA60 is not clear. NA60 collaborators asked to use their published values.
• It is still no too clear that Drell-Yan was subtracted from spectra
• It is a big concern on how charm was treated

 

The biggest concern from my side is the way we fit the spectra. In fact we can use the fit and extract T only if spectral function/M^2 is constant (structureless), because only than dN/dM is defined by f^B.

 

I would be happy to read new drafts of papers (please send me pdf if possible as my account was blocked… and it takes longer this time to rehabilitate…) or look at the slides or answer questions. 

 

Cheers,

Tetyana

 

 

From: Star-dilepton-l <star-dilepton-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of "Brandenburg, Daniel" <brandenburg.89 AT osu.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 28. March 2023 at 14:36
To: "Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: [Star-dilepton-l] Dilepton meeting reminder

 

Dear all,

 

This is a reminder for our dilepton meeting today at 10am. Yiding will give a presentation. Please let us know if anyone else would like to share slides. 

 

Drupal: 

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/event/2023/03/28/Dielectron-Focus-Group-Meeting

 

 

Zoom:

https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1614823129?pwd=TEdjV0FBY0tRTG02bkp4dzR5RWYzdz09

 

 

Best,

 

Daniel Brandenburg

Assistant Professor 

College of Arts and Sciences 

Department of Physics 

Ohio State University 

_______________________________________________
Star-dilepton-l mailing list
Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-dilepton-l__;!!BuQPrrmRaQ!mE7XxTnb7U_Qi0CaruUMZiGLbRS82QX8aN3K49rv2M6dT2PiRyIhZQW_P58QQoG8WwyLOik9W5cFNwjEul0wm_glFxV-ZA$ 

 

_______________________________________________
Star-dilepton-l mailing list
Star-dilepton-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-dilepton-l