Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-hp-l - Re: [Star-hp-l] My CFNS-npQCD talk

star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
  • To: "Ma, Rongrong" <marr AT bnl.gov>
  • Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] My CFNS-npQCD talk
  • Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 23:05:41 +0530

Thank you, Rongrong.
Best
Nihar


On 2023-10-26 21:27, Ma, Rongrong wrote:
Hello Nihar

Thanks for the additional comments.

I changed T_c to T_pc on the slide. What I meant is that the
temperature of the medium created at 54.4 GeV is closer to T_pc than
that at 200 GeV. If the HFE v2 is gained at T much higher than T_pc,
one would expect larger v2 at 200 GeV, which is not the case in our
data.

Best
Rongrong

On Oct 26, 2023, at 1:08 AM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Rongrong,

Thank you for addressing my comments. Your slides look good in shape now from my side.
I sign off.

However, just want to clarify myself on this point from you.

- "Charm quark gain v2 at T close to Tc" -> what is "Tc" here ? And
What is the value of Tc? Why it is important?
Tc is the pseudo-critical temperature around 165 MeV. Here the point
is that the medium temperature created at 54.4 GeV is expected to be
Then it would be good to mention "T_pc" (instead of T_c) as in literature people use this notation.

lower than that at 200 GeV. Yet, we see similar HFE v2, which
indicates that HFEs obtain their v2 mainly at T close to Tc.
Otherwise, one would see a larger v2 at 200 GeV than 54.4 GeV.
It sounds like T_pc is close(/around) to 200 and 54 GeV collision energy. Is this what you mean?

Thank you
Nihar



On 2023-10-25 23:55, Ma, Rongrong wrote:
Hello Nihar
Thanks for your comments.
I thought a bit more on this. Since my talk is now really a STAR
overview talk (the organizer wanted me to give a RHIC physics overview
at the beginning), I think it is more appropriate to go through the
official approval procedure. So I have submitted the latest version on
Drupal (https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/65722) after addressing
your comments.
Please see my replies inline:
On Oct 25, 2023, at 2:43 AM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:
Hello Rongrong,
Thank you for sharing your nice presentation slides on heavy-flavor.
Overall your slides look nice and capture all physics measurements
of STAR.
Here are my additions comments for your consideration.
Slide5:
- "Charm quark gain v2 at T close to Tc" -> what is "Tc" here ? And
What is the value of Tc? Why it is important?
Tc is the pseudo-critical temperature around 165 MeV. Here the point
is that the medium temperature created at 54.4 GeV is expected to be
lower than that at 200 GeV. Yet, we see similar HFE v2, which
indicates that HFEs obtain their v2 mainly at T close to Tc.
Otherwise, one would see a larger v2 at 200 GeV than 54.4 GeV.
Slide7:
- "About a factor of 2 suppression…" -> Not clear, with respect to
what
This is just another way of saying R_AA ~ 0.5. I added "compared to
p+p"
Slide9:
- Do you need to refer "QM2023" for this D^0+jet results? Same for
next slide
Since I now treat this talk as a STAR talk, I do not think a reference
to QM2023 is needed.
SLide13:
- Better to motivate this result with QGP effect can smear
D^0-D^0bar correlation. But uncertainty limits to pin down
I will mention this motivation verbally during my talk.
Slide14:
- "Coalescence is important" -> Do we need to mention also "at low
pT"?
That's mostly true, but I do not feel this needs to be stated
explicitly on the slide since the two figures show results starting
from 1.5 GeV/c and 3 GeV/c.
After Slide16, It would be good to summarize the key physics that we
observed from open heavy flavor measurements at STAR. Otherwise
people may be lost.
I added half of the original summary slide here.
Slide18:
-"Hint of rising trend toward low energy" -> Is that correct to
comment within these uncertainties?
I removed that sub-bullet, but I will probably mention this verbally
as a question rather than a conclusion.
_ You could hint to the "primodial" and "Regeneration" effects at
high and low energies.
Added a sub-bullet.
Slide19:
-Could you comment on QGP thermal temp based on sequential
suppression of quarkonia? That is important take away from these
results at RHIC.
I added a half sentence on this. I intentionally kept it vague since
the connection is less straightforward as originally envisioned.
SLide20-22:
Physics motivation is missed here. Better to say a few words.
Added a bullet.
Slide21-23: better to motivate with other pesudoscalar meson
results from FCV.
Added a figure from the Nature paper
After Slide23: You could summarize the key physics learnt from QGP
point of view.
And then you can go to UPC J/psi results discussion to study other
Physics not related to QGP.
Since I only have two slides on UPC J/psi, I kept the summary slide
at the end.
Best
Rongrong
Best
Nihar
On 2023-10-24 20:33, Ma, Rongrong via Star-hp-l wrote:
Dear All
I was invited by the CFNS-npQCD workshop
(https://indico.cfnssbu.physics.sunysb.edu/event/110/) organizers
to
present an overview of the STAR heavy flavor results. Even though
it
is not a STAR talk, I will exclusively present STAR results. So I
would like to seek your comments and suggestions on my talk, a
first
draft of which can be found here:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/RMa_CFNS_npQCD_v1.pdf.
Your feedback is more than welcome. Thanks.
Best
Rongrong
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page