Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-fcv-l - Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 6/Oct/2021 Wed. 9:30AM at BNL

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

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: 申迪宇 <dshen AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
  • To: ASHIK IKBAL <ashikhep AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT icloud.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: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 21:54:37 +0800
Hi Ashik,

Thanks for your reply.
For the theoretical calculations "PHYSICAL REVIEW C 89, 054905 (2014)” and "PHYSICAL REVIEW C 98, 055201 (2018)”, they purposely only calculated EM-field induced v1-splitting which is negative and has no transported quark involved. The transported quark contribute to positive \Delta v1 slope which can be demonstrated by data and models(UrQMD, AMPT).

I am not saying you cannot associate your measurements with EM-field, as I have not said your v1-splitting must come from the strangeness dependence. If your positive \Delta v1 splitting comes from EM-field, I just want to know why it is opposite to our conclusion. We have to explain it, and this is inevitable. 

You use PHSD+EMF to describe data, which gives positive \Delta v1 slope. That surprised us, as the calculations I mentioned above predict negative \Delta v1 slope.  
I am confused by it. Could you tell me what is the results of default PHSD without EMF? I also noticed you have uncertainty bands for PHSD+EMF simulations, how did you take that error into account in your final significance number/ final conclusion?

Moreover and more importantly, we think it is insightful to look into the difference between default PHSD and PHSD+EMF. That will tell us directly the effect from the EMF only.

You quoted a significance of 4.83\sigma for \Delta q dependence, I read from paper draft that you have forced the fitting to across (0,0) which has no error, it means you have assumed the NCQ scaling holds perfectly for produced quarks. But we know NCQ scaling is an approximate scaling, depending on the physics you are after, one may have to consider the error of (0,0) which reflects how precise the NCQ scaling is.

Best,
Diyu


On Mar 15, 2022, at 9:49 PM, ASHIK IKBAL <ashikhep AT gmail.com> wrote:

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:
Hi, Ashik and all,

As both of us are interested in the v1 splitting, and we all got some interesting results, I want to bring out a discussion here.
Your analysis focus on the produced quarks via kinds of combinations of hadrons, you see violations of NCQ scaling and this violation increases with charge difference(\Delat q) and strangeness difference(\Delta S). 
I have no doubt about your analysis, but I want to discuss a little about the interpretations.
Although you given a sentence in the paper draft that \Delta q and \Delta S are inevitably correlated, but you imply the \Delta q is the dominate effect and trying to explain it by EM-field. 
When you do so, you imply the EM-field will introduce positive \Delta v1 slope between positive charges and negative charges, while the theoretical prediction is negative.
On another hand, our measurement shows the \Delta v1 slope between proton and anti-proton is negative, which is qualitatively consistent with theoretical calculations. 
So there is an apparent conflict, which should be avoided and understood before the publication.
From my point of view, if you want to argue the positive \Delta v1 slope is introduced by EM-field(\Delta q), you should fit \Delta q within a constant \Delta S. 

Best,
Diyu


On Mar 14, 2022, at 7:42 AM, ASHIK IKBAL via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Conveners,

We would like to request for GPC of the analysis on "Electric charge and strangeness dependent directed flow splitting of produced quarks in Au+Au collisions".  We replied to all comments from FCV-PWG and PWGC. There are very minor updates of the results as per the comments from PWGC: 
1. Lower pT/nq cut is shifted from 0.1 to 0.13 GeV/c to get proton identification right. 
2. Only 5 independent combinations are shown in the plot of delta-v1 slope vs charge and delta-v1 slope vs strangeness.

Here are the details of the analysis, replies and the paper draft:


If there are no further comments/suggestions from the PWG, we wish to request for GPC.

Thanks,
Ashik (for the PAs')

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:25 PM ASHIK IKBAL <ashikhep AT gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Prithwish, Shinilchi, all,

We were discussing at the FCV today about the STAR presentation (from FCV) for the upcoming DNP21 conference and I was told to share the agenda. Here is the information on the talks (by me, Niseem and Chunjian) from FCV group:

Room name: Park.Scollay
Password: MITDNP21

Best,
Ashik

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:10 AM ASHIK IKBAL <ashikhep AT gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,


Thanks,
Ashik

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:20 AM pdixit via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to give a short update on our analysis of the elliptic and 
triangular flow of multistrange hadrons in Au+Au collision at 54.4 GeV. 
Please add me to the agenda.
Link to my slides: 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/FCV_meeting_06102021.pdf

Thanks and regards,
Prabhupada
On 2021-10-04 19:22, ASHIK IKBAL via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Dear conveners,
> 
> I would like to give an update on “Coalescence and quark flow”.
> Please add me to the agenda. I will post my slides ASAP.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ashik
> 
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:21 AM ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
>> Dear FCV PWG colleagues
>> 
>> We will have our weekly FCV PWG meeting on this Wednesday morning
>> 6/Oct/2021
>> 9:30AM in BNL (NY time zone) at our usual time and place. So if you
>> have anything to
>> present, please let us know and please post your slide by Tuesday.
>> The zoom room link,
>> ID and pass for the FCV PWG meeting are in our usual drupal agenda
>> page below.
>> 
>> Please also keep in mind that all the preliminary plots should have
>> already been there
>> in the summary area below. Please prepare, if yours are not there...
>> 
>> Best regards, Jiangyong, Prithwish and ShinIchi
>> 
>> Meeting agenda page with zoom link :
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/jjiastar/bulkcorr
>> Preliminary page :
>> 
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/bulk-correlations/bulkcorr-preliminary-summary
>> _______________________________________________
>> Star-fcv-l mailing list
>> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
>  --
> 
> 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
>                              ashik AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov
>                              ashik.ikbal.sheikh AT cern.ch
> _______________________________________________
> 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


-- 
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
                             ashik AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov
                             ashik.ikbal.sheikh AT cern.ch


-- 
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
                             ashik AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov
                             ashik.ikbal.sheikh AT cern.ch


-- 
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
                             ashik AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov
                             ashik.ikbal.sheikh AT cern.ch
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l



--
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
                             ashik AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov
                             ashik.ikbal.sheikh AT cern.ch


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page