Jaki Noronha-Hostler
@jnoronhahostler.bsky.social
Is this about Columbia? I had the pleasure of being pregnant there and not having a bathroom in my floor 😭
September 12, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Is this about Columbia? I had the pleasure of being pregnant there and not having a bathroom in my floor 😭
Anyway, there was probably an even worse example I didn’t mention that was it cited a random STAR paper for the beam energy Scan’s search for the critical point, rather than the more obvious net-proton fluctuations paper or some of the review papers out there.
September 2, 2025 at 11:40 AM
Anyway, there was probably an even worse example I didn’t mention that was it cited a random STAR paper for the beam energy Scan’s search for the critical point, rather than the more obvious net-proton fluctuations paper or some of the review papers out there.
I think it depends on wording. If it’s about the discovery itself (in the context of this sentence it was) then the original should be cited, but if it’s the context of the state of the art later work should be. It just depends on what someone is trying to convey.
September 2, 2025 at 11:35 AM
I think it depends on wording. If it’s about the discovery itself (in the context of this sentence it was) then the original should be cited, but if it’s the context of the state of the art later work should be. It just depends on what someone is trying to convey.
To give an example in my field, for the cross-over from the Quark Gluon Plasma to a hadron resonance gas it did not cite the proper 2006 Nature paper but other papers that came out 5-10 years later. They confirmed the previous result with better error bars, but are not the same thing.
September 1, 2025 at 10:22 PM
To give an example in my field, for the cross-over from the Quark Gluon Plasma to a hadron resonance gas it did not cite the proper 2006 Nature paper but other papers that came out 5-10 years later. They confirmed the previous result with better error bars, but are not the same thing.
Thanks for putting together a great meeting!
June 26, 2025 at 11:31 AM
Thanks for putting together a great meeting!
To be clear, this was a paper that was quite foundational to my PhD thesis, which makes it all the more entertaining to see a bit of history play out.
June 3, 2025 at 2:12 PM
To be clear, this was a paper that was quite foundational to my PhD thesis, which makes it all the more entertaining to see a bit of history play out.
Why am I amused by this? Up and down quark masses are only a few MeV whereas the mass of the proton/neutron are almost 1000 MeV. Thus, he's off by about a factor of 1000 in his estimates :)
That factor of a 1000 comes from gluons (both self interactions and with the quarks)
That factor of a 1000 comes from gluons (both self interactions and with the quarks)
June 3, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Why am I amused by this? Up and down quark masses are only a few MeV whereas the mass of the proton/neutron are almost 1000 MeV. Thus, he's off by about a factor of 1000 in his estimates :)
That factor of a 1000 comes from gluons (both self interactions and with the quarks)
That factor of a 1000 comes from gluons (both self interactions and with the quarks)
It goes on to say that maybe a minimum quark mass of 5 times that of the protons/neutrons might be large enough. I'm not sure when QCD was understood well enough in the community to know the difference between dressed/bare quarks, but it must not have been well-understood back in 1968 by Hagedorn.
June 3, 2025 at 2:08 PM
It goes on to say that maybe a minimum quark mass of 5 times that of the protons/neutrons might be large enough. I'm not sure when QCD was understood well enough in the community to know the difference between dressed/bare quarks, but it must not have been well-understood back in 1968 by Hagedorn.