star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG
List archive
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL
- From: "Wang, Fuqiang" <fqwang AT purdue.edu>
- To: ASHIK IKBAL <ashikhep AT gmail.com>, "STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG" <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 22:36:17 +0000
|
Hi Ashik, Diyu,
Now I’m confused. Looking at both your results again, I observe: - \Delta v1 split is positive for positive \Delta q for produced quarks in 10-40% centrality. - \Delta v1 split is positive for positive \Delta q also for proton – antiproton in the same 10-40% centrality range. - However, \Delta v1 for proton – antiproton becomes negative in more peripheral collisions. From Diyu’s presentation, EM-field model calculation is negative v1 for positive charge, increasing from central to peripheral. So Diyu’s interpretation of his data is that the positive transport proton v1 is overtaken by the strong negative shift from EM in peripheral collisions. However, what Ashik was saying is that the EM field effect is positive v1 for positive charge. So I do think there’s a contradiction, at least apparently, that needs to be sorted out.
First off, the easy question: Positive v1 is defined to be the direction of spectator nucleons at positive rapidity, as I understand it. So positive v1 for transport protons makes sense to me. Is Ashik’s positive v1 also defined to be the direction of positive-rapidity nucleons?
Best regards, Fuqiang
From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov>
On Behalf Of ASHIK IKBAL via Star-fcv-l
Hi Diyu,
Thanks for your email. Regarding the concern you brought to my attention, my comments are as follows:
1. As you have already seen, the analysis is focused on the particles containing produced quarks only. We combine particles in such a way that the combinations have identical quark content on both sides to test the coalescence sum rule. Once this sum rule is valid, we tried to find combinations that have a net non-zero charge difference. In the combinations, we use the strange baryons along with other produced particles. When we combine particles, the combinations must have a net strangeness. Similarly, they will also have a net baryon number. This is an unavoidable consequence of quark quantum numbers. Here we have seen the v1 splitting increases with increasing charge difference which is due to the presence of em field. We have shown this splitting with strangeness to make a point that the splitting also scales with strangeness like it does with charge, since the charge and strangeness is correlated here. For the sake of argument, I want to bring up the splitting between D0 and D0-bar which is solely driven by the em field even if the D0 and D0-bar combination has a net charmness quantum no. We do not say that this splitting between D0 and D0-bar is due to the net charmness.
I think the theoretical calculations you are talking about here is the splitting between a particle and its antiparticle (e.g., p-pbar, pi+-pi-, K+-K-) where there are transported quarks. For our case, the difference is not simply between a particle and its antiparticle rather a group of produced (anti-)particles. You can notice that we also have the theoretical calculations (transport model calculations, PHSD) presented in the paper that have the same pattern as we found in the experiment. I think the pattern we found is consistent with the transport model calculations.
2. Regarding the fitting of \Delta v1 slope with \Delta q within a constant \Delta S is a good idea indeed, but it is not feasible here. This is because we only have 2 independent data points having the same \Delta S and among them one has large uncertainty. From only 2 data points it is really difficult to conclude anything. We discussed all these points many times during my presentations within the PWG.
Please let me know if you have any further concerns.
Best, Ashik
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:15 AM 申迪宇 <dshen AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
-- Ashik Ikbal Research Associate Kent State University Department Of Physics Kent, OH 44242, USA Contact no.s: +1 631-504-7647 (USA) +91 8250216234 (India) Alternate e-mails: asheikh2 AT kent.edu |
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
ASHIK IKBAL, 03/13/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
申迪宇, 03/15/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
ASHIK IKBAL, 03/15/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
Wang, Fuqiang, 03/15/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
Prithwish Tribedy, 03/16/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
Tang, Aihong, 03/16/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
ASHIK IKBAL, 03/16/2022
- Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL, Tang, Aihong, 03/16/2022
- Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL, ASHIK IKBAL, 03/17/2022
- Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL, Sooraj Radhakrishnan, 03/19/2022
- Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL, ASHIK IKBAL, 03/22/2022
- Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL, Sooraj Radhakrishnan, 03/22/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
ASHIK IKBAL, 03/16/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
Tang, Aihong, 03/16/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
Prithwish Tribedy, 03/16/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
Wang, Fuqiang, 03/15/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
ASHIK IKBAL, 03/15/2022
- Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL, Tang, Aihong, 03/17/2022
-
Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL,
申迪宇, 03/15/2022
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.