I am forwarding this message to you from Mark Baker, as a follow-up on a previous suggestions to have informal workshop on common subjects. Initially I thought that the first issue to be discussed was common centrality, but this is also related. I would apprceiate input to how to contribute learn from this. Flemming ------------------------------------------------------ Flemming Videbaek Physics Department Brookhaven National Laboratory tlf: 631-344-4106 fax 631-344-1334 e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark D. Baker" <baker@rcf2.rhic.bnl.gov> To: "Tim Hallman" <hallman@bnl.gov> Cc: <mdbaker@bnl.gov>; <ullrich@bnl.gov>; <panitkin@bnl.gov>; <kharzeev@bnl.gov>; <drees@skipper.physics.sunysb.edu>; <nagle@nevis1.nevis.columbia.edu>; <steinber@rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>; <zajc@nevis.columbia.edu>; <harris@star.physics.yale.edu>; <busza@mit.edu>; <videbaek@bnl.gov>; <mclerran@bnl.gov>; <dave@bnl.gov>; <ludlam@bnl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:07 PM Subject: Re: First Two Topical Workshops on RHIC > Folks, > > I'd like to start organizing the workshop series on Glauber/Npart > that we agreed to following Tim Hallman's email. I'd like to ask > each collaboration to nominate contributors according to the > guidelines below. > > The questions that I would like to answer within the next 2 months > are: > 1) Do we agree what "Glauber" means and the correct formulation, > in principle? > 2) How does each experiment measure "centrality" currently and how > does it estimate Npart from this? Are they consistent and, if not, > can we agree upon a consistent approach while keeping every group > satisfied that we are doing something sensible? > 3) Is it possible to use the ZDCs to compare similar event samples > in all four experiments? I.e. are the ZDCs sufficiently the same > in principle? How well is the ZDC understood/simulated? > > NOTE: Actually comparing dN/deta in "identical" bins of ZDC > is probably beyond the scope of this workshop series. The idea > behind "question" 3 is to see whether we can come up with a fairly > model-independent benchmark yardstick. If we succeed, I would > then ask the collaborations to consider going public with the > answers. Three of the collaborations have already published > numbers and all four have shown results at QM, so this is not > an unreasonable request... > > My proposal is for each collaboration (and the theory group) > to select a small number (1-5?) of experts who are actually > willing to do homework and answer detailed questions about the > performance and simulations of their global detectors (or code). > I would propose that each collaboration choose an even smaller > number of annoying kibitzers (0-1) who just want to participate > in the discussions, represent the collaboration, but not really > do any genuine work. > > This group would then meet every week or two for 6-8 weeks and > work on these questions - mostly in person at BNL if possible, > but with a conference phone for outliers. At the end of this time > we would then hold a more public workshop to summarize the main > conclusions and any strong minority opinions followed by a > discussion period. > > Is this approach still acceptable to the collaborations? > If so, please nominate participants. > > Thanks > Mark > > P.S. Due to email problems - please respond to: > baker@rcf2.rhic.bnl.gov rather than my usual address. > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 30 2001 - 17:02:23 EDT