<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Alternative Contributions to the Angular Correlations Observed at RHIC Associated with Parity Fluctuations · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1002.1758/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1002.1758/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Alternative Contributions to the Angular Correlations Observed at RHIC Associated with Parity Fluctuations — mentioned by jackdawjack</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1206384</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1002.1758:1206384</guid><pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:51:07 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yet another article about the parity breaking at rhic, i work in this field and while this would be very exciting it&amp;#x27;s not a cut and dry result. Running the numbers for the proposed theoretical cause of the parity violation leads to something a lot smaller than what is observed. While making simpler, non parity violating, arguments based on geometry and the elliptic flow in the fireball can get you near the right numbers. See this paper for another explanation of the observed charge correlations http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1758 edit clarification&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1002.1758/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>nucl-th</category></item></channel></rss>
