STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Egor Alpatov <egroker1 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Shinichi,

Thank you very much for pointing out about Lambda decay parameters. Yes, that's just a typo in my picture, I updated presentation.

I guess, while we already have publication with different decay parameters values, we should stick to this way of things.
But this difference wouldn't be crucial, so I'll be okay with the same decay parameter.

Thank you,
Egor Alpatov

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:03 AM ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l