STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[niseem <niseem AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear Prithwish and ShinIchi,

Please let me know if you have any addatinal comments.

Thanks,
Niseem


On 2020-09-15 20:19, niseem via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Dear Prithwish and ShinIchi,
>
> Please find the updated abstract at this link,
>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Niseem_IS1_21_0.pdf
>
>
> For your comments,
>
> (1) ShinIchi comments,
>
> 1- I thought you would be also focusing various different ways of
> non-flow subtractions, which you do not mention here at all, while you
> do mention about the different ways of centrality definition only for
> UU?
> > > There is no different centrality definition I rephrased the sentence 
> > > to give a better understanding
>
> 2- I would say you might like to focus on the most important
> topics/point that you would like to
> present, like energy dependence, system size dependence, centrality
> determination and/or non-flow subtraction etc…
> > > Abstract updated
>
> 3-some more words on how this measurement would be related to the
> small system vn? where we do not see clear quenching effect at least
> on RAA...
> > > I agree with you, p+Au got removed
>
> (2) Prithwish comments
> i- Comments on the abstract :
> -using the STAR experiment —> from the STAR experiment
> -Au+At at 200 —> Au+Au at 200
> -“The measurements scaling features”   sounds a bit ambiguous, pls. be
> specific and revise this sentence.
> -constraints for—> constraints on
> -upcoming O+O and p+Au runs at RHIC—>anticipated O+O run at RHIC in
> the year 2021
> > > All comments are considered
>
>
> -Do you want to mention p+Au here ? A p+Au run at STAR/RHIC is going
> to take a while, also we already have p+Au data which might create a
> confusion.
> > > I agree with you, p+Au got removed
>
> -Along the line of ShinIchi's comments: adding a line on the novel
> subtraction method that you use can strengthen your abstract, however,
> I leave this to you.
> > > I agree with you, the sentence has been updated
>
>
> ii-Comments on analysis and preliminary approval:
> 1. We find out what would be our policy on promising isobar data in an
> abstract. If PAC’s recommendation on not showing isobar data at any
> conference was specific to CME analysis, this won’t be a problem. But,
> you don't have to worry -- we will clarify this from management before
> the abstract is submitted.
>
> > > Please note that the meeting will be in January and we started the 
> > > production I’m hoping to have final results before that. Also, as you 
> > > stated these only flow measurements.
>
> 2. In your last presentation you mentioned about ongoing 27 GeV 
> analysis :
> https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/niseem/pwg_2020/High_PT_3.pdf
> However, in this abstract you mentioned about 54 GeV. Do you have
> plans to show/include both 27 and 54 GeV ?
>
> > > 27 GeV added to the abstract I’m working on it now.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Niseem
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l