No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 1.332 GeV and W = 1.839 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 1.433 GeV and W = 1.889 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 1.534 GeV and W = 1.939 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 1.635 GeV and W = 1.987 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 1.737 GeV and W = 2.035 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 1.838 GeV and W = 2.081 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 1.939 GeV and W = 2.126 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 2.039 GeV and W = 2.170 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 2.139 GeV and W = 2.212 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 2.240 GeV and W = 2.255 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 2.341 GeV and W = 2.296 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 2.443 GeV and W = 2.338 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 2.543 GeV and W = 2.377 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 2.642 GeV and W = 2.416 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ LAMBDA for incident energy = 2.741 GeV and W = 2.454 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 1.232 GeV and W = 1.787 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 1.332 GeV and W = 1.839 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 1.433 GeV and W = 1.889 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 1.534 GeV and W = 1.939 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 1.635 GeV and W = 1.987 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 1.737 GeV and W = 2.035 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 1.838 GeV and W = 2.081 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 1.939 GeV and W = 2.126 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 2.039 GeV and W = 2.170 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 2.139 GeV and W = 2.212 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 2.240 GeV and W = 2.255 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 2.341 GeV and W = 2.296 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 2.443 GeV and W = 2.338 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 2.543 GeV and W = 2.377 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 2.642 GeV and W = 2.416 GeV.

Coefficients Cx and Cz for the reaction GAMMA P --> K+ SIGMA0 for incident energy = 2.741 GeV and W = 2.454 GeV.

FIG. 2: a) left side: The correlation data for the ratio of the histograms of same-event-pairs to mixed-event-pairs for unlike-sign charged pairs, shown in a two-dimensional (2-D) perspective plot $\Delta\phi$ - $\Delta\eta$. The plot was normalized to a mean of 1. b) right side: The similar correlation data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 3: a) left side: Folded correlation data for unlike-sign charge pairs on $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ based on demonstrated symmetries in the data. This increases the statistics in a typical bin by a factor of four. Henceforth we will be dealing with folded data only. b) right side: Similar folded data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 3: a) left side: Folded correlation data for unlike-sign charge pairs on $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ based on demonstrated symmetries in the data. This increases the statistics in a typical bin by a factor of four. Henceforth we will be dealing with folded data only. b) right side: Similar folded data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 4: “(Color online)”a) left side: The 2 dimensional (2-D) approximately gaussian signal shape equation (4) from the fit to the normalized and folded unlike-sign charge pairs signal data. b) right side: The unlike-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjoining signal function on the left side.

FIG. 4: “(Color online)”a) left side: The 2 dimensional (2-D) approximately gaussian signal shape equation (4) from the fit to the normalized and folded unlike-sign charge pairs signal data. b) right side: The unlike-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjoining signal function on the left side.

FIG. 5 :“(Color online)”a) left side: A perspective plot of the fit to the 2-D like-sign charge pairs signal shape of equation (5). b) right side: Like-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left side.

FIG. 5: “(Color online)”a) left side: A perspective plot of the fit to the 2-D like-sign charge pairs signal shape of equation (5). b) right side: Like-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left side.

FIG. 6: “(Color online)”a) left side: The charge dependent (CD) signal shape is a 2 dimensional (2-D) approximate gaussian which is symmetrical. The average gaussian width is 27.5$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 3.2$^{\circ}$ (0.48 $\pm$ 0.056 rad) both in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$. Thus we are observing a greater probability for unlike-sign charge pairs of particles than for like-sign charge pairs emitted randomly on 2-D $\eta\phi$ directions. b) right side: The CD signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left.

FIG. 6: “(Color online)”a) left side: The charge dependent (CD) signal shape is a 2 dimensional (2-D) approximate gaussian which is symmetrical. The average gaussian width is 27.5$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 3.2$^{\circ}$ (0.48 $\pm$ 0.056 rad) both in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$. Thus we are observing a greater probability for unlike-sign charge pairs of particles than for like-sign charge pairs emitted randomly on 2-D $\eta\phi$ directions. b) right side: The CD signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left.

FIG. 7: “(Color online)”a) left side: The fit to the charge independent (CI) signal shape which is the sum of the fits of like-sign plus unlike-sign charge pairs signals. The 2-D gaussian equivalent RMS signal has a $\Delta\phi$ width of about 32$^{\circ}$ (0.52 rad), and $\Delta\eta$ width of about 66$^{\circ}$ (1.15 rad) which is about double the $\Delta\phi$ width. b) right side: The CI signal data corresponding to the adjacent fit on the left.

FIG. 7: “(Color online)”a) left side: The fit to the charge independent (CI) signal shape which is the sum of the fits of like-sign plus unlike-sign charge pairs signals. The 2-D gaussian equivalent RMS signal has a $\Delta\phi$ width of about 32$^{\circ}$ (0.52 rad), and $\Delta\eta$ width of about 66$^{\circ}$ (1.15 rad) which is about double the $\Delta\phi$ width. b) right side: The CI signal data corresponding to the adjacent fit on the left.

FIG. 8: a) left side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with the lower range of elliptic flow amplitude and the best $\chi^2$ (the same as Figure 7b) plotted as a 2-D perspective plot on $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$. b) right side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with our maximum elliptic flow amplitude used in our analysis ($\chi^2$ was worse by 1$\sigma$).

FIG. 8: a) left side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with the lower range of elliptic flow amplitude and the best $\chi^2$ (the same as Figure 7b) plotted as a 2-D perspective plot on $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$. b) right side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with our maximum elliptic flow amplitude used in our analysis ($\chi^2$ was worse by 1$\sigma$).