STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

["Ma, Rongrong" <marr AT bnl.gov>]

Hi Fuqiang

As I mentioned during the meeting, I think the discussion of Lambda and the 
homework questions can go parallel. So I still encourage PAs to send in 
answers at your earliest convenience.

Hi Aihong

While it is true that we do not have theoretical guidance on Lambda, I think 
a valid question to ask is whether our current Lambda measurements, which 
looks like you already have, fit into the physics picture. Given our current 
measurements of pi/k/p (kaon contains s quark), is it possible to 
qualitatively predict whether the Lambda-antiLambda splitting should be 
positive, negative or 0 given that Faraday+Coulomb dominates over Hall? If 
so, are the current measurements consistent with the naive expectation? The 
answer could be that Lambda is too complicated that we are not certain about 
the sign of the splitting. That's fine. Still, I think this is a worthwhile 
discussion. 

Thanks!

Best
Rongrong



> On Dec 21, 2022, at 3:11 PM, Tang, Aihong <aihong AT bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> 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
>