STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Jiangyong Jia <jiangyong.jia AT stonybrook.edu>]

Shinichi,

This was shown before on Aug 4 on slide 11 (solid circles)
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/isobar_nuclear_deformation_0804_bulkcorr_czhang.pdf

which you can compare with top-left panel of slide 7 from last week
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/isobar_nuclear_deformation_0929_Collmeeting_czhang_v3.pdf

you can see the difference without needing to plot them directly.

Jiangyong

On 10/7/21 10:28 AM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Dear Chunjian
> If you have the comparison between the two ratios "ratio of average" and 
> "averaged ratio" in both wide and small steps of the centrality bin, that 
> you 
> have not shown us yet, right? On the other hand, the shifting effect should 
> always be there, where we are comparing v2 at different multiplicity for a 
> given 
> centrality in case of centrality dependent plot as I mentioned in my 
> previous 
> E-mail, that I hope you have understood. So if you could just re-plot what 
> I’ve 
> mentioned in "PS" of my previous E-mail, I would guess you could judge 
> yourself what the more dominant effect is. 
> Best regards, ShinIchi
>
>> On Oct 7, 2021, at 22:17, Jiangyong Jia via Star-fcv-l 
>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Shinichi,
>>
>> I want to chime in and clarify this point
>>
>>> So I just wanted to say it is reasonable to see your minimum at about 
>>> Nth_corr~220 
>>> to be systematically higher at about ~1.01 than the other minimum of 
>>> about ~1.00 at 
>>> centrality 5-20%. Maybe this is what you meant by saying "the ratio of 
>>> average and 
>>> averaged ratio are different" or "the centrality bin width effect”, which 
>>> sounds different 
>>> to me. But anyway, I think we understood, which is more like “a shifted 
>>> ratio" etc. I think 
>>> it was indeed a good decision for you to show the ratio as a function 
>>> multiplicity, which 
>>> is expected to be different from the one as a function of centrality 
>>> anyway. Thanks 
>>> again for the hard works and interesting results. 
>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>> There are two effects
>>
>> 1)  We have found even if you bin events in centrality, as long as it is
>> very fine bins in centrality, you will see the ratio is at 1.01.
>>
>> This is really because centrality bin width effect. <v2R/V2Zr>
>> !=<v2R>/<V2Zr>. Because the latter ratio, the <Nch> for <v2R>
>> and <v2Z> are different in the central region. 
>>
>> 2) second effect is that the peak of v2 ratio is around Nch~80 (the peak
>> is very broad and shallow), while the peak of v2 ratio obtained for wide
>> centrality bin as in CME paper would be around 40-50% corresponding to
>> Nch~60. This difference in this case is actually due to the fact that
>> <v2R/V2Zr> at the same Nch does not corresponds to the ratio at the same
>> centrality. i.e. <v2R/V2Zr>_Nch !=<v2R/V2Zr>_cent. In fact, if we bin
>> events with narrow centrality, we can recover the same peak location.
>>
>> Jiangyong
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l