STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[ShinIchi Esumi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

Dear Chunjian
Thanks for your understanding about the shifting effect and correcting the 
legend label 
and "congratulations" to the highlight selection in DNP. I’m sure your talk 
will be good. 
Best regards, ShinIchi

PS : I hope you could re-plot the lower-right 2x2 panel in page 7 in the 
future... 

> On Oct 7, 2021, at 23:11, Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> 
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Shinlchi,
> 
> Hello. Thank you for your nice comments 
> 
>> Thank you very much for the answer. I now remember the discussion in the 
>> PWG, but 
>> I had not really been understanding correctly at that time, as I was 
>> fooled by saying 
>> "the ratio of average and averaged ratio are different”, which is true, 
>> though. 
>> 
>> For the same centrality, the multiplicity for Ru is higher, and v2 is also 
>> slightly higher for 
>> Ru at a given multiplicity (according to your result, the ratio is always 
>> above one), and 
>> v2 has steep negative slope with multiplicity around 5-20% centrality. 
>> These 3 combined 
>> effects are mimicking the v2 ratio at these two centrality bins around 
>> 5-20% to be very 
>> close to unity, where v2 ratio is effectively taken at different 
>> multiplicity between 2 systems, 
>> so we divide v2{Ru}(Mult.) / v2{Zr}(Mult.-alpha), that has happened to be 
>> about unity in 
>> case of the ratio as a function of centrality (just at that centrality 
>> region 5-20%), that has 
>> been seen in the isobar CME arXiv paper as well as your centrality binned 
>> ratio. 
>> 
>> 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 
> yes. This is the multiplicity shift/v2 magnitude between Ru and Zr so 
> calculations in narrow Nch binning could minimize this effect. If we divide 
> them in centrality, yes the <Nch> in the corresponding centrality bin is 
> different where Ru is large than Zr. 
>> PS : By the way, the 4 plots at the lower-right corner of your page 7 of 
>> the PWG slide 
>> below, your legends seem to be wrong, where black/blue are both standard, 
>> and red/pink 
>> are both two-subevent method, right? Please confirm. If you can plot two 
>> black points and 
>> two blue points from upper (Ru) and lower (Zr) panels to overlay them in 
>> the same panel, 
>> then you will see what I mentioned above, where black points are always 
>> given at the same 
>> multiplicity by definition, but blue points will be shifted horizontally 
>> for the same centrality 
>> and happens to be similar in v2 for the 2nd and 3rd points from the most 
>> central.
> yeah. Sorry I labeled wrong. That’s too bad I even did not find it. Of 
> course the clear difference between standard and two-subevent in peripheral 
> region. And the consistency between Nch binning and centrality binning in 
> whole centrality.  Thought this plot, we can also see the  <Nch> in fixed 
> centrality bin are different where Ru > Zr. I fixed this plot now and use 
> the correct label in the same 
> linkhttps://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/isobar_nuclear_deformation_0929_Collmeeting_czhang_v3.pdf.
>  
> Thank you for pointing this. I really appreciated. 
> 
> By the way, I also post the preliminary plots in 
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/chunjian/preliminary-figures-aps-dnp-2021
> 
> Also, This work/presentation was selected as APS NDP highlight and its 
> meeting outreach to journalists by APS Press Office. Cheers~
> Best regards
> Chunjian 
> 
>> On Oct 7, 2021, at 4:51 AM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l 
>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Chunjiang
>> Thank you very much for the answer. I now remember the discussion in the 
>> PWG, but 
>> I had not really been understanding correctly at that time, as I was 
>> fooled by saying 
>> "the ratio of average and averaged ratio are different”, which is true, 
>> though. 
>> 
>> For the same centrality, the multiplicity for Ru is higher, and v2 is also 
>> slightly higher for 
>> Ru at a given multiplicity (according to your result, the ratio is always 
>> above one), and 
>> v2 has steep negative slope with multiplicity around 5-20% centrality. 
>> These 3 combined 
>> effects are mimicking the v2 ratio at these two centrality bins around 
>> 5-20% to be very 
>> close to unity, where v2 ratio is effectively taken at different 
>> multiplicity between 2 systems, 
>> so we divide v2{Ru}(Mult.) / v2{Zr}(Mult.-alpha), that has happened to be 
>> about unity in 
>> case of the ratio as a function of centrality (just at that centrality 
>> region 5-20%), that has 
>> been seen in the isobar CME arXiv paper as well as your centrality binned 
>> ratio. 
>> 
>> 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 
>> 
>> PS : By the way, the 4 plots at the lower-right corner of your page 7 of 
>> the PWG slide 
>> below, your legends seem to be wrong, where black/blue are both standard, 
>> and red/pink 
>> are both two-subevent method, right? Please confirm. If you can plot two 
>> black points and 
>> two blue points from upper (Ru) and lower (Zr) panels to overlay them in 
>> the same panel, 
>> then you will see what I mentioned above, where black points are always 
>> given at the same 
>> multiplicity by definition, but blue points will be shifted horizontally 
>> for the same centrality 
>> and happens to be similar in v2 for the 2nd and 3rd points from the most 
>> central. 
>> 
>>> On Oct 7, 2021, at 12:45, Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Shinlchi,
>>> 
>>> Hello. Thank you for your questions. 
>>> 
>>>> I just like to make sure the size of systematic 
>>>> errors on these 3 ratios are all OK or not, at least, compared to the 
>>>> plots from isobar CME 
>>>> arXiv paper in page 6, where the v2 ratio seem to be touching unity 
>>>> (which might be caused 
>>>> by the large symbol size, though), while yours are well above unity at 
>>>> minimum in page 7. 
>>>> We might have discussed in the PWG, as there could be some difference in 
>>>> terms of the 
>>>> extraction methods and conditions. Could you please remind me about 
>>>> this, if you have the 
>>>> answer? 
>>> 1) the systematics are ok in our Preliminary plots. For conservative and 
>>> safe considerations, we estimate the systematics including the difference 
>>> between standard and two-subevent, the different from different methods  
>>> calculations and conditions. 
>>> 2) If we use the unit Nch bin, the results would not touch to 0 at Ntrk ~ 
>>> 220, this is the centrality bin width effect. ( we already talked this in 
>>> the FCV meeting in 
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/isobar_nuclear_deformation_0929_Collmeeting_czhang_v3.pdf)
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> Chunjian 
>>>> On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:31 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l 
>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Chunjian
>>>> Thank you very much. The slides are very good. I just like to make sure 
>>>> the size of systematic 
>>>> errors on these 3 ratios are all OK or not, at least, compared to the 
>>>> plots from isobar CME 
>>>> arXiv paper in page 6, where the v2 ratio seem to be touching unity 
>>>> (which might be caused 
>>>> by the large symbol size, though), while yours are well above unity at 
>>>> minimum in page 7. 
>>>> We might have discussed in the PWG, as there could be some difference in 
>>>> terms of the 
>>>> extraction methods and conditions. Could you please remind me about 
>>>> this, if you have the 
>>>> answer? 
>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 7, 2021, at 11:31, Chunjian Zhang 
>>>>> <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Shinlchi and Prithwish,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please find my new version including all your nice comments in 
>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DNP_Oct_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v4.pdf
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also add slide 9 of the bulk observable comparison. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Comments are welcome and looking for your further comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Chunjian 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2021, at 5:40 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l 
>>>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Chunjian
>>>>>> Thank you, I like the maker/symbol style/type of figures in page 7 and 
>>>>>> 8 much better now. 
>>>>>> You can plot the points whatever data/analysis allows, but I would 
>>>>>> just like to have the 
>>>>>> x-axis range from 0 to 400 (or from 0 to 450), not from ~5 to ~395…, 
>>>>>> just like the one on 
>>>>>> the top-right figure of page 6. Sorry, this is just a cosmetic 
>>>>>> comment. If I may be allowed to 
>>>>>> add, I would also like to move the location of "2%" aligned with other 
>>>>>> numbers, that can be 
>>>>>> done by typing something like “5,  2,  1,  0.2 (%)” or? I will also 
>>>>>> wait for your final decision 
>>>>>> on the choice to include the multiplicity ratio to be compared with 
>>>>>> these ratios or not, where 
>>>>>> the ratio of Ntrk_offline distributions has an interesting/specific 
>>>>>> structure (with a broad maximum 
>>>>>> around 140~200 as well as somewhat narrower minimum around 260~270, 
>>>>>> plus a strong peak 
>>>>>> close to ~400 that comes back to unity again at about ~450), where 
>>>>>> they are most likely all 
>>>>>> given by the deformation and/or nuclear skin structures). In order to 
>>>>>> show/high-light the strong 
>>>>>> peak around ~400, you might even need to have an additional inset 
>>>>>> figure panel with much 
>>>>>> expanded vertical scale, though... 
>>>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 2021, at 4:27, Chunjian Zhang 
>>>>>>> <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear Shinlchi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Than you for you sign-off. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Why don’t you start your x-axis (Nch_corr) from zero for page 7 and 
>>>>>>>> 8? Any reason 
>>>>>>>> to exclude a first few points as you are starting from 20 in stead 
>>>>>>>> of 0? If not, please 
>>>>>>>> start from 0. Even if you do need to exclude a first few points from 
>>>>>>>> the plots, I would 
>>>>>>>> still start the x-axis from 0. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I calculate them in 0-80% centrality which exactly follow the CME 
>>>>>>> runs and events and track cuts. Now I release it to 10 tracks with 
>>>>>>> 80%. Please find the new version in 
>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DNP_Oct_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v2.pdf
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The plot on the page 8 is very good to show the experimental data 
>>>>>>>> with emphasized 
>>>>>>>> "large and clear solid" symbol, however it is not the case in the 
>>>>>>>> plots on page 7, where 
>>>>>>>> the experimental data are not really clearly shown, so could you 
>>>>>>>> please make it (STAR 
>>>>>>>> Data) clear with "larger and solid symbol", while the other model 
>>>>>>>> points with "smaller 
>>>>>>>> and open symbols”? 
>>>>>>> Thank you for this nice comments. We were working on this and now I 
>>>>>>> use the better version in slide 7 and 8. Hope you will like it 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If the Ntrk_offline definition shown in your backup is mostly same 
>>>>>>>> as your Nth_corr, 
>>>>>>>> it would still be good to show this "multiplicity ratio" also in the 
>>>>>>>> plots in page 7 and 8, 
>>>>>>>> although we do not yet know how to compare/interpret, maybe just 
>>>>>>>> with a thin line 
>>>>>>>> with excluding the connecting lines between points that you now have 
>>>>>>>> in your page 7. 
>>>>>>>> I would still like to see your Nth_corr distribution overlaid with 
>>>>>>>> the published Ntrk_offline 
>>>>>>>> distribution to confirm these, if they are different, I do agree 
>>>>>>>> that it does not make sense 
>>>>>>>> to overlay the multiplicity ratio on page 7 and 8. 
>>>>>>> I plane to use a new slide include flow and variance with the Ntrk 
>>>>>>> from CME draft. These observable are all influenced by deformation. 
>>>>>>> So, I will compare them and discuss it in the last slides. (Will add 
>>>>>>> it )
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards 
>>>>>>> Chunjian 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:49 AM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l 
>>>>>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear Chunjian
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the nice presentation. Although I’ve already signed off, 
>>>>>>>> I have a few more 
>>>>>>>> questions and suggestions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Why don’t you start your x-axis (Nch_corr) from zero for page 7 and 
>>>>>>>> 8? Any reason 
>>>>>>>> to exclude a first few points as you are starting from 20 in stead 
>>>>>>>> of 0? If not, please 
>>>>>>>> start from 0. Even if you do need to exclude a first few points from 
>>>>>>>> the plots, I would 
>>>>>>>> still start the x-axis from 0. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The plot on the page 8 is very good to show the experimental data 
>>>>>>>> with emphasized 
>>>>>>>> "large and clear solid" symbol, however it is not the case in the 
>>>>>>>> plots on page 7, where 
>>>>>>>> the experimental data are not really clearly shown, so could you 
>>>>>>>> please make it (STAR 
>>>>>>>> Data) clear with "larger and solid symbol", while the other model 
>>>>>>>> points with "smaller 
>>>>>>>> and open symbols"? 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If the Ntrk_offline definition shown in your backup is mostly same 
>>>>>>>> as your Nth_corr, 
>>>>>>>> it would still be good to show this "multiplicity ratio" also in the 
>>>>>>>> plots in page 7 and 8, 
>>>>>>>> although we do not yet know how to compare/interpret, maybe just 
>>>>>>>> with a thin line 
>>>>>>>> with excluding the connecting lines between points that you now have 
>>>>>>>> in your page 7. 
>>>>>>>> I would still like to see your Nth_corr distribution overlaid with 
>>>>>>>> the published Ntrk_offline 
>>>>>>>> distribution to confirm these, if they are different, I do agree 
>>>>>>>> that it does not make sense 
>>>>>>>> to overlay the multiplicity ratio on page 7 and 8. 
>>>>>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2021, at 23:34, Chunjian Zhang 
>>>>>>>>> <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear Shinlchi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hello. Thank you for your nice comments and suggestions. I also 
>>>>>>>>> include your comments with the updated version in 
>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DNP_Oct_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v1.pdf
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I also update the new plots. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 5, 2021, at 11:51 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l 
>>>>>>>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chunjian
>>>>>>>>>> I would also sign off your nice DNP presentation with a few 
>>>>>>>>>> comments. 
>>>>>>>>>> 1) I would also like to see the ratio of RefMult in the page 7 in 
>>>>>>>>>> addition to your page 8. 
>>>>>>>>> Finally we may not include the Nch distribution in the outside. 
>>>>>>>>> This may be accidental. I have no idea how to connect it right now. 
>>>>>>>>> We need to dig it out with more studies and insights
>>>>>>>>> Please find the plots below 
>>>>>>>>> <PastedGraphic-1.png>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2) I thought you were also requesting preliminaries for v2, v3 and 
>>>>>>>>>> 2nd and 3rd order normalized 
>>>>>>>>>>    mean pT fluctuation before making their ratios. If so, we could 
>>>>>>>>>> have them in the backup?  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I did not request them separately. I only need the ratio for my 
>>>>>>>>> talk presently and the ratio is totally robust.  We do not need to 
>>>>>>>>> worry anything. 
>>>>>>>>>> 3) I would also have original RefMult distributions somewhere at 
>>>>>>>>>> least in your back-up? 
>>>>>>>>> I include the published CME refmult in my backup slide
>>>>>>>>>> 4) Please prepare a set of preliminary plots in one page so that 
>>>>>>>>>> we can include in the DB. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I will do it as soon as possible. Thank you for your kind reminder.
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best regards 
>>>>>>>>> Chunjian 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 2021, at 10:46, Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l 
>>>>>>>>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Chunjian,
>>>>>>>>>>> Nice slides:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DNP_Oct_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v0.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Please see my comments below. With these included, I sign-off.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#1:
>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's always a great idea to spell out your institution 
>>>>>>>>>>> name below your name. Also your name doesn't have to be written 
>>>>>>>>>>> in too small font like you have now.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#2:
>>>>>>>>>>> The right most cartoon is not "Freeze Out" its more like 
>>>>>>>>>>> "Detection"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#2:
>>>>>>>>>>> "pressure gradient forces" --> "pressure gradients"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#2:
>>>>>>>>>>> "The shape of the size of the overlap is directly controlled by 
>>>>>>>>>>> the shape..colliding nuclei" --> "The shape and the size of the 
>>>>>>>>>>> overlap is controlled by the shape...colliding nuclei, most 
>>>>>>>>>>> dominantly in central collisions."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#3:
>>>>>>>>>>> In the equation of \rho(r,\theta,φ), a parenthesis ")" is missing 
>>>>>>>>>>> in the exponential.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#3:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Final Particle Flow" --> "Produced Particle Flow"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#3:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Harmonic flow" --> "Anisotropic flow"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#4:
>>>>>>>>>>> "is just shape" --> "is related to the shape"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#4:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Harmonic flow" --> "Harmonic flow coefficient"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#4:
>>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is unclear: "R_\perp is related to Y_2^0 projected 
>>>>>>>>>>> to the transverse plane". R_\perp is related to which aspect of 
>>>>>>>>>>> Y_2^0? It's magnitude ?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#4:
>>>>>>>>>>> Equation of "R_\perp^2 = <x^2> +<y^2> =<...>" I don't understand 
>>>>>>>>>>> how this works. The term inside <...> is dimensionless because 
>>>>>>>>>>> spherical harmonics are dimensionless where as R, x, y are not. 
>>>>>>>>>>> Something is missing here.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#4:
>>>>>>>>>>> Please increase the font of the sentence starting with 
>>>>>>>>>>> "fluctuation of ...."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#5:
>>>>>>>>>>> Much of what you write on this slide is related to search for 
>>>>>>>>>>> CME. The sentence starting with "A precision.." is not needed for 
>>>>>>>>>>> your talk. But please somewhere write "Isobar run originally 
>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated to CME search". You can also refer to Sergei's talk for 
>>>>>>>>>>> more details but that is optional.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#6:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Deviate from unity from mid-central" --> "Deviate from unity in 
>>>>>>>>>>> mid-central collisions"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#6:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Request for more and finer bins" --> "Goal is to explore this in 
>>>>>>>>>>> finer bins of multiplicity"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#7:
>>>>>>>>>>> "deformation using heavy ion collisions" -->"deformation in heavy 
>>>>>>>>>>> ion collision measurements"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#8:
>>>>>>>>>>> Title "variance ratio" --> "[pT]-variance ratio"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#8:
>>>>>>>>>>> "also could be used in conjunction with anisotropy" -->"could 
>>>>>>>>>>> also be used in conjunction with anisotropic"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#9:
>>>>>>>>>>> "The large difference of v_2 and v_3 suggests" --> "The large 
>>>>>>>>>>> difference of v_2 and v_3 in central isobar collisions"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#9:
>>>>>>>>>>> "[pT] fluctuations also could be used in conjunction with 
>>>>>>>>>>> anisotropy flow on the deformation study conclusion are 
>>>>>>>>>>> consistent"
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>> "[pT] fluctuations also sensitive to deformation study leads to 
>>>>>>>>>>> consistent conclusion:"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#9:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Opportunity to study on nuclear structure at a much shorter 
>>>>>>>>>>> scale (~10^-24 s)"
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>> "Opportunity to study nuclear structure at very short time scale 
>>>>>>>>>>> (~10^-24 s) accessible through heavy ion collisions"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#9:
>>>>>>>>>>> "A lot of possibility for scan." -->"A future deformed-system 
>>>>>>>>>>> scan will be ideal."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#9:
>>>>>>>>>>> "But need to first establish the heavy ion systematics using 
>>>>>>>>>>> species with known deformation"
>>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>>> "Species with well known deformation will be useful to better 
>>>>>>>>>>> understand the systematics and establish the efficacy of this 
>>>>>>>>>>> approach"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Prithwish
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-01 17:46, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>>>>>>>>> ChunJian Zhang (chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu) has submitted a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> material for
>>>>>>>>>>>> a review, please have a look:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/56634
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>