STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

["Tang, Aihong" <aihong AT bnl.gov>]

Hi, Fuqiang and all :

I can only repeat what I said at the end of the meeting. There is nothing 
particular about Lambda. The argument of being neutral particle so that they 
are special is not valid (see the example of D0 directed flow).  

Our work is motivated by the theoretical calculations of EM effect on 
directed flow splitting for light particles. Before asking us to include 
lambda, please demonstrate the sensitive of (anti)Lambda directed flow 
backing up with publications. If we know clearly what we are after, we'd 
include it. Otherwise it is a distraction. Furthermore, such request can be 
extended to any particle species, they all have potential of being consistent 
or not consistent, and the expectation will be anybody's guess, I don't see 
what we can learn from it.  

Thanks,

Aihong



> On Dec 21, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Wang, Fuqiang via Star-fcv-l 
> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> An immediate comment I have is that, in order to arrive at an 
> interpretation, all data have to be considered including the Lambda data 
> which is one of our institutional comments. I'm not sure the Lambda data 
> would naturally be consistent with the current interpretation. If it is, we 
> should clearly convey that; if it isn't, we should add remark/caveat on 
> that. 
> 
> So to me, the first thing to be resolved is to have the Lambda data in the 
> paper. Then we can craft the messages of the papers.
> 
> Best regards,
> Fuqiang
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of Ma, 
>> Rongrong
>> via Star-fcv-l
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 1:37 PM
>> To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>> Subject: [Star-fcv-l] Homework questions for GPC #332 and #337
>> 
>> ---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data 
>> ----
>> 
>> 
>> Dear PAs, members of GPC #332, #337
>> 
>> Thanks very much for preparing slides and participating in today's 
>> discussion,
>> which really helped to push both papers forward. Here are the questions as
>> mentioned during the meeting. Please provide answers before Jan. 4th.
>> 
>> 1) Do you agree with the essence of the following big-picture message for 
>> the
>> two papers: the Hall effect dominates in 10-40% centrality while
>> Faraday+Coulomb dominates in peripheral collisions?
>> 
>> A related question: can we defend this physics message as a collaboration? 
>> Are
>> we aware of any models/calculations that state such a centrality 
>> dependence is
>> not possible?
>> 
>> 2) Are you open to combine both analyses into one paper? If not, are you 
>> open
>> to submit both papers to the same journal? If so, which journal(s) do you
>> recommend?
>> 
>> 3) If you prefer to have two papers, please send out your proposed 
>> abstract,
>> conclusion, and relevant discussions of the other analysis for your own 
>> paper,
>> taking into account today's discussion and question 1),
>> 
>> Let's see responses from both GPCs, and hopefully we can converge soon.
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Best
>> Rongrong
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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