STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu>]

Dear Convenors,

Hello. Just a kinder reminder. If you have no further comments on my slides, could you please move it to Physics? Since the conference will start EST tonight ~Thank you

Best regards

Chunjian

On Nov 2, 2021, at 7:06 PM, Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Dear Shinchi,

Hello. Your nice comments are considered in https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ATHIC_Nov_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v3_0.pdf

Thank you and best regards 

Chunjian 

On Nov 2, 2021, at 6:23 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Chunjian

You have 4 times page 8, which is very nice and instructive, you added just two lines going 

from 3rd to 4th times the same page, but without adding any text in the page or legend in 

the figure, so you could add a few words saying “line is nucleon glauber and open marker 

is quark glauber” somewhere in the page...

Best regards, ShinIchi

On Nov 3, 2021, at 6:35, Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Dear Shinlchi,

Hello. Than you for nice comments.  Please find the new updates in https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ATHIC_Nov_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v3.pdf and my answers for addressing your comments below 

It’s very good to go step-by-step from 1) to 4) in p7, as I told you earlier, 
I would like to see just with “R0" in 3) and add “a0” in 4), that you can 
show us sometime later in the PWG. 

You know my step by step is: beta2—> Beta2+beta3—> beta2+beta3+a0—> beta2+beta3+R+a0;

You nice comments will be addressed in the later PWG. But I do need time to run the cases (beta2+beta3+R). Because this is not the approximated estimations. These are direct input. 

Anyway, we can also estimate the R effect from the difference between beta2+beta3+a0 and beta2+beta3+R+a0. 

BUT. I also agree with you adding  beta2+beta3+R is a good suggestions and I will run it. 

In p8, you are showing Glauber estimators first with open symbols and 
then later lines, it’s not clear from the slide about the difference between 
symbols and lines, while red-blue difference is clear, though. Can you also 
do this with AMPT?

Line is nucleon glauber and open marker is quark glauber. You can see more smear in the tail.  And the peripheral and mid-central is identical. 

We can not do it in the AMPT since AMPT the radial response of mean pt fluctuations is not enough or weaker . So it’s hard to give the right answers. 

In p9, you scale the experimental data by 1.015, so you might like to 
give a reasoning about this, too. You would also need to point out that 
there is one free parameter “trigger efficiency” in the Glauber fitting to 
the experimental data independently for two systems, since one excludes 
the peripheral region from the fitting, that is also the reasoning why you 
would like to scale up, I guess… We also need to think about how we 
compare these 4 different assumptions to the common data or individually…

Thank you for this comment. I do need to add "! Note the normalization is very sensitive to the trigger efficiency” 

Thank you and best regards 

Chunjian 

On Nov 2, 2021, at 12:19 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Chunjian
Thanks for the nice slide, I would sign off with a few comments below.

It’s very good to go step-by-step from 1) to 4) in p7, as I told you earlier,
I would like to see just with “R0" in 3) and add “a0” in 4), that you can
show us sometime later in the PWG.

In p8, you are showing Glauber estimators first with open symbols and
then later lines, it’s not clear from the slide about the difference between
symbols and lines, while red-blue difference is clear, though. Can you also
do this with AMPT?

In p9, you scale the experimental data by 1.015, so you might like to
give a reasoning about this, too. You would also need to point out that
there is one free parameter “trigger efficiency” in the Glauber fitting to
the experimental data independently for two systems, since one excludes
the peripheral region from the fitting, that is also the reasoning why you
would like to scale up, I guess… We also need to think about how we
compare these 4 different assumptions to the common data or individually…

Best regards, ShinIchi

On Oct 30, 2021, at 7:09, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 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/56975

---
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