STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Hi ShinIchi,

Please find the updated abstract at this link,

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Niseem_IS1_21_0.pdf

Thanks,
Niseem

On 2020-09-22 13:48, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Dear Niseem
> I would sign off your nice abstract with the following comments.
> I would remove the “first” on the 4th line. The “scaling” property
> would need to be clearly explained and discussed in the PWG.
> Best regards, ShinIchi
>
> > On Sep 22, 2020, at 17:21, niseem via Star-fcv-l 
> > <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jiangyong,
> >
> > Please find the updated abstract at this link,
> >
> >
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Niseem_IS1_21_0.pdf
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Niseem
> >
> >
> > On 2020-09-21 06:45, 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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