STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Shengli Huang <shengli.huang AT stonybrook.edu>]

Dear Prithwish,

    I keep "weak system independence" unchanged to avoid a too strong statement. But your are right, I do miss the "underlined->underlying". Now the updated version is here:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52107

Thanks!

Shengli

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:52 AM Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Shengli,
   Somehow the current version (SmallSystemIS2021-v4) does not show the
changes including my comments. Did you upload an older version.
Best,
Prithwish


On 2020-09-23 10:45, Shengli Huang wrote:
> Dear Prithwish,
>      Thanks for the comments. The updated version can be found at:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52107
>
> Regards
> Shengli
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:01 PM Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l
> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi Shengli,
>> The new version looks good, please consider a couple of additional
>>
>> comments.
>>
>> We should either say "A weak system dependence of v3" or "A system
>> independence of v3"
>>
>> underlined physics --> underlying physics
>>
>> This statement about similar vn at RHIC and LHC is valid for the
>> same
>> centrality bin right ?
>> (Like what is shown in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.10415.pdf [1] )
>>
>> Then maybe we should clearly mention it?
>>
>> How about:
>> "Similar to large system, vn in p+Au at RHIC has also been found to
>> be
>> similar to the same in p+Pb at the LHC."
>> -->
>> "Similar to large systems, at comparable centralities, vn in p+Au
>> at
>> RHIC has also been found to be similar to the same in p+Pb at the
>> LHC"
>>
>> Best,
>> Prithwish
>>
>> On 2020-09-22 20:58, Shengli Huang via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>> Dear Prithwish and ShinIShi,
>>> Thanks for the comments and signing off. You can find my
>> update
>>> version under:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52107
>>>
>>> Regards!
>>> Shengli
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:24 PM Shengli Huang
>>> <shengli.huang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear ShinChi,
>>>> I have no idea for the task force but I think you are in the
>>>> task force. I am still finalizing the paper draft now. So once it
>> is
>>>> done. I will request for the pwgc review. Sorry for the waiting,
>>>> COV-19 really ate most part of my time.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Shengli
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:17 PM ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Shengli
>>>> I see. The sub-nucleon structure would be there in all the case,
>> but
>>>> the
>>>> nucleon fluctuation is getting dominant in dAu and 3HeAu cases,
>> so I
>>>> can
>>>> also agree. Then it’s now getting closer to the phenix
>> conclusion
>>>> then, I
>>>> thought you were saying more about multiplicity rather than the
>>>> geometry
>>>> from star side, or? I’m open to both cases, which is in deed
>>>> interesting.
>>>> Could you remind me your publication status on this? I thought we
>>>> were
>>>> forming some task forces to resolve these issues between the
>>>> experiments,
>>>> do you know about that as well? By the way, one of our student
>> Yuri
>>>> from
>>>> Tsukuba has started to looking into dAu, so let’s see what she
>>>> would say
>>>> in the PWG, hopefully very soon...
>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:52, Shengli Huang
>>>> <shengli.huang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear ShiniChi,
>>>> Even with sub-nucleon fluctuation, the eccentricity in centrally
>>>> dAu will be 20% larger than pAu. So the multiplicity will not be
>> the
>>>> only reason for the flow difference between these three small
>>>> systems.
>>>> There is no energy dependence between RHIC and LHC even in large
>>>> system while the <Nch> can be a factor of 5 difference.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Shengli
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:28 PM ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear ShengliI thought your results could be explained by a
>> general
>>>> multiplicity
>>>> trend from pA -> dA -> 3HeA? Therefore I was wondering why you
>>>> need (or like) to say “pA” is similar to LHC, I just like to
>>>> know what
>>>> is special on pA and/or different from dA and 3HeA...
>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:08, Shengli Huang
>>>> <shengli.huang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear ShinIshi,
>>>> I am a little confused about you second comments. Similar to
>>>> pPb is by comparison which we show in BUR. But we do not say
>> p/d/He
>>>> are similar.
>>>>
>>>> Shengli
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 14:47 ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>> Dear Shengli
>>>> I can also sign off your nice abstract with a few comments below.
>>>> You say the results are not sensitive to the methods, but I
>>>> understood
>>>> that you’ve selected the methods based on the consistency of
>> the
>>>> results.
>>>> Is your pAu qualitatively different from dAu and 3HeAu? I’m
>> asking
>>>> this
>>>> because you say it's similar to pPb at LHC…
>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 23, 2020, at 0:41, Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l
>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Shengli,
>>>>> Nice abstract, here are my comments -- with these included I
>> sign
>>>> off.
>>>>>
>>>>> 200 GeV are shown -- > 200 GeV will be shown
>>>>>
>>>>> A weak system independent v3 has been found -->  A weak system
>>>> dependence of v3 has been observed
>>>>>
>>>>> for three central small systems --> in the central events of
>> three
>>>> small systems
>>>>>
>>>>> Comparing with different hydro-model  --> Comparison with
>>>> different hydro-model
>>>>>
>>>>> It think the hydrodynamic evolution is no the emphasis here. How
>>>> about saying "hydro-model calculations with different assumptions
>> on
>>>> the initial conditions" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> dominated by sub-nulceon fluctuations --> dominated by
>> sub-nulceon
>>>> scale fluctuations
>>>>>
>>>>> vn in p+Au is similar to that in p+Pb from LHC --> vn in p+Au at
>>>> RHIC is similar to the same in p+Pb at the LHC
>>>>>
>>>>> We will also discuss the proposed O+O run at RHIC in future -->
>> In
>>>> the context of our measurement we will also discuss the prospects
>> of
>>>> the proposed O+O run at RHIC
>>>>>
>>>>> It will supply a direct comparison with LHC O+O results --> It
>>>> will facilitate a direct comparison with the results from an
>>>> anticipated O+O run at the LHC
>>>>>
>>>>> underlined physics for the anisotropic behavior and initial
>>>> geometry in small system.
>>>>> -->
>>>>> underlying physics driving the anisotropic behavior and the role
>>>> of the initial geometry in small collision systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Prithwish
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2020-09-22 10:20, Shengli Huang via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Jiangyong,
>>>>>> Thanks for the comments. I update the abstract by taking your
>>>>>> suggestion.
>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52107
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Shengli
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 8:17 AM Jiangyong Jia via Star-fcv-l
>>>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, Shengli,
>>>>>>> The abstract looks good. I think you should mention the
>>>> additional
>>>>>>> study
>>>>>>> you have done since QM, so it does not sounds like a repeat of
>>>> the
>>>>>>> QM talk.
>>>>>>> I would mention
>>>>>>> 1)  a detailed evaluation of the non-flow and method
>> dependence
>>>> have
>>>>>>> been carried out. The results main robust.
>>>>>>> 2)  comprehensive comparison with recent model calculations
>> has
>>>> been
>>>>>>> performed, which provide new material for interpretation.
>>>>>>> 3)  mention a detailed comparison with LHC has been done for
>>>> various
>>>>>>> systems and provide motivation for O+O runs.
>>>>>>> 4) anything you should say about the c2{4} measurement?
>>>>>>> Jiangyong
>>>>>>> On 9/16/20 8:28 PM, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>>>>> Shengli Huang (shengli.huang AT stonybrook.edu) has submitted a
>>>>>>> material for a
>>>>>>>> review, please have a look:
>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52107
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> If you have any problems with the review process, please
>>>> contact
>>>>>>>> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.10415.pdf__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!XNjYNjdvB83Hwn2OcbSgobeSbdv1QS8P3E8snc19MtBrAPPAYOiujHaj8lpHXlsrMdR6FIv4$