STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hi Niseem,
  The new version looks good. I only have one comment. With that 
included I sign off.

"Jet quenching studies can give crucial insight on the initial-state 
geometry and the transport
properties that characterize the QGP created in high-energy nuclear 
collisions."
-->
"Studying the quenching of high momentum particles in collision systems 
of various shapes and sizes provide crucial insights on the initial 
conditions and the transport properties of the QGP"

Let's avoid starting the abstract with "Jet quenching studies" to 
discern it from traditional jet reconstruction analyses.

We are still not sure if we should not promise results on Isobar 
collisions. Please be prepared to edit the part where you say "Ru+Ru" 
and "Zr+Zr".

Best,
Prithwish





On 2020-09-21 07:45, Jiangyong Jia via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Hi, Niseem,
>
> The abstract looks very good. My only suggestion is to try align the
> physics better with initial state of the Heavy ion collisions.
>
> Right now you mainly talk about the final state, but I believe jet
> tomography also constrains initial geometry (via the scaling 
> relations) 
>
> You might want to mention something about the scaling aspect and what
> one can learn by comparing with LHC.
>
> Other than this, I sign off.
>
> Jiangyong
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Star-fcv-l mailing list
> > Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l