Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-fcv-l - Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Egor Alpatov for NUCLEUS – 2021 submitted for review

star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: ShinIchi Esumi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>
  • To: "STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG" <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Egor Alpatov for NUCLEUS – 2021 submitted for review
  • Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:02:19 +0900

Dear Egor
Thanks for the nice presentation. I would like to sign off your talk as this uses the 
approved preliminary plots. (I might have asked you earlier, though.) But I would 
again like to make sure the decay constant you used to get your results is the 
updated decay parameter in PDG and is same as the one which was used to 
get other older results that you are comparing to within the same figure? All of our 
recent publications seem to use 0.732 / -0.758 for L / anti_L including the Xi/Omega
publication, that are slightly different from your numbers in your plot as the last 
digits (...2 and ...8) are reversed between L and anti_L in your figure compared to 
the published Fig.2 and 3. Are they just typos in your (or published) figures, or the 
applied numbers are indeed different? 

Another question, since you are now only showing the average of Xi and anti_Xi, 
so it does not matter much, but would you prefer to use the different absolute 
numbers for the L and anti-L decay parameters as given by PDG, when presenting 
the comparison between global polarizations from L/Xi and anti_L/Xi in the future? 
There was some discussions yesterday in the FCV parallel session during Joey’s 
talk, where he would prefer to use the same absolute value between L and anti_L, 
because he would like to provide the observed difference from this measurement 
alone, that is also understandable, although PDG tells us the number differs by ~2 
sigma in absolute value. So in the future, we would need to agree at least within 
the collaboration how to present the data. Please tell me what you think? At least 
in the recent publication on Xi/Omega, we used the different numbers for L and 
anti_L separately. 
Best regards, ShinIchi 

On Sep 15, 2021, at 6:36, Egor Alpatov via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Conveners,

The NUCLEUS conference starts next week.
Could you please have a look at my and Alexei Povarov presentations?
They are both made of already shown and approved materials, so I hope it'll not be a problem.

Thank you,
Egor Alpatov

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 1:05 PM webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,

Egor Alpatov (egroker1 AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a review,  
please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/56187

---
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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page