From: Ian Bearden (bearden@nbi.dk)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 16:25:50 EDT
Hej Dieter, Hello others... here are some comments from Dieter, to which I (try to) respond in line below. I know that it is now 16.20 on the east coast, but if you guys can hold out for another half hour (less, I hope) we'll have a new version of the high-pt story with the correct (!?) figures. Please try to comment today so that we can make the (one hopes!) last corrections tomorrow morning (Danish time). Best regards, Ian On mandag, jun 30, 2003, at 21:41 Europe/Copenhagen, Dieter Rohrich wrote: > > Hei Ian, godt at se at din Norsk bliver bedre... > > I have one major and a few minor comments. > > Primary vertex and pt-measurement: > --------------------------------- > I just realized that in dAu our vertex resolution is 9 cm. So I guess > you > used the intersection of the MRS track with the beamline as the event > vertex. The extrapolation error is probably about 1 cm. This > uncertainty > introduces two systematic errors: we cannot remove secondary tracks and > our pt-determination is biased. Both effects result in shifting the pt > to > higher values. I don't know how big these effects are; has someone > simulated them? The vertex business is described here: http://www.nbi.dk/~ekman/highpt/dAuAnalysis.html We think that the contribution from background is rather small at high pt (we can, after all, still cut in the y-direction). I don't think anyone has done a simulation. > > minor comments > -------------- > abstract: > replace "nucleon nucleon collisions" with "p-pbar collisions" OK > > Fig. 1: where is the p-pbar data? Scaling factors? They're in now. > > Fig. 2: I guess this is not the final figure (no bands, lines etc.)? It is on the way... > > typos on page 3: < 2.5. > N_{bin} > dN/deta_{gluon}? fixed... > > page 4: remove "directly" in paragr. "From these measurements...." why? It does seem to be directly correlated....does it not? > > page 4: Depending on how serious my major concern turns out to be, > remove > "Rather, it shows an enhancement .... lower energies." > and > "In fact, the observation of a Cronin enhancement ..... large nuclei." I think your major concern was not serious enough to warrant that. I hope you agree:-) > With best wishes, > Dieter > > > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Ian Bearden wrote: > >> Hi Steve, >> I will try to accommodate you. >> On mandag, jun 30, 2003, at 18:03 Europe/Copenhagen, Stephen J. >> Sanders >> wrote: >> >>> Dear JJ and Ian, >>> In the spirit of parallelism, I've gone through the latest draft >>> looking for additional >>> typos, grammar errors, etc. I think the physics story is now pretty >>> stable, although >>> I will be interested in seeing the final figures and figure captions. >>> In any case, here is another list >>> of (mostly) minor items: >>> >>> Institution list: The zip code for the University of Kansas is >>> 66045. >>> (I made this mistake a while >>> back and keep forgetting to fix it on subsequent papers...) >>> >>> Para 1: e.g. (rather than eg.) >>> change to: "... a high degree of nuclear transparency, as may be >>> ... >>> [1]." Otherwise >>> the parenthesis are not matched. >> OK >>> change to: " ...subsequently forms suggest that the system, ..." >>> Otherwise the subject >>> is separated from the verb. >> OK >>> change to: "An analysis of particle ratios at midrapidity..." >>> Remove unnecessary comma. >> O,K (conservation of commas...) >>> >>> Para 2: change to: "...from initial hard parton scatterings, have >>> been >>> ..." >> I say "are predicted" gives us one more word of space... >>> >>> Para 4: change to: "BRAHMS consists of two magnetic >>> spectrometers >>> for >>> measuring hadrons and antihadrons (the MidRapidity >>> Spectrometer, MRS, and the Forward Spectrometer, FS) that for the >>> present measurements were positioned at 90 degrees (eta = 0) and >>> 12 degrees (eta = 2.2), respectively." There may be a better >>> rephrasing, >>> but there needs to be a "respectively" somewhere in the statement >>> and >>> we only report on measurements at two rapidity points, not a >>> "range". >> I added respectively...look at the draft which you should recieve in >> less than one hour... >>> >>> "An additional trigger based selected..." Based on what? >>> "...most central events (0- ..." Is 0- some special jargon >>> symbol? >>> The use of a >>> special font? Something is strange... >> I have now: An addition hardware trigger selected the ~25% most >> central events for parts of the... >>> Why is the 6.6m location singled out in the list of inel vertex >>> positions? The second >>> "z = " should be removed. >>> >>> Para 5: change to: "The spectra are from..." Remove extra comma. >> OK. >>> change to: "...for the acceptance of the spectrometers and for the >>> tracking efficiency." >>> I would suggest removing the final "and normalized to the number >>> of >>> events." >>> If the final clause is felt necessary, then the entire sentence >>> should be reworked >>> or broken into two. >> removed "and normalized..." >>> I would suggest adding in the HIJING reference the specific version >>> that we used, >>> particularly since this is an issue for the dAu analysis. >> OK...Hiro, Claus...what version? >>> >>> Para 6: In defining R_AA, the superscript should also be AA, rather >>> than AuAu. Presumably >>> this definition is meant to be generic. However, the figures >>> should then >>> have R_AuAu, as is used in the text. >> There are no superscripts. If you insist, I'll change the subscripts, >> but for now I'd rather work on more substantive comments. >>> >>> Para 7: change to: "For the various centrality cuts shown in Fig. 1 >>> we use ..." This corrects two >>> problems: 1) Without an explicit reference back to Fig. 1 the >>> reader will assume >>> the Fig. 2 cuts, of which there are only two shown. 2) "use" is >>> missing. >> Now reads: For the centrality cuts used, Nbin=.... >>> Is is p_t, p_T, or pt? All three forms are used for the transverse >>> momentum! >> I changed them all to p_T . >>> change to: "We note, however, that because of the lack of an..." >>> The "due to" form is >>> not appropriate here. >> We note, however, that because we lack an ... >>> change to: "We estimate it to be 30%...." Need "be". >> fixed >>> Fix: ' before cent and per... I believe in LaTeX you use two >>> single >>> quotes '' to get >>> the correctly slanted double quote. >> I'll check... >>> Para 8: Fix: dN/d_(gluon) >> done >>> Para 10: I don't think that "participant zone" is defined anywhere in >>> the paper. This may be >>> somewhat confusing jargon. >> I agree with you. Give me an idea that is better. >>> "i.e." not "i.e" >>> Para 11: Same "i.e." issue... >>> change to: "...and absorption mechanisms and by carrying..." >>> Remove >>> unnecessary comma. >>> >> done >>> References: I believe the convention on the arXiv archive is to use >>> lowercase: i.e., "nucl-ex" rather than "Nucl-ex" >>> ref 11 should be "Nucl. Phys." >> Nucl. Phys. what? >>> As a general comment on the figure, I would suggest changing all of >>> the eta appox = 2 notations to >>> eta = 2.2. This would make them more consistent with the text. >> This is being done...I hope.... >> >> Thanks Steve. >> Look forward to a new draft in an hour or so... >> Cheers, >> Ian >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 03:00 PM, Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> As you are aware a major international interest is focussing on the >>>> phenomenon called high-pt suppression at RHIC. By many - perhaps at >>>> the moment mostly theorists- this effect is seen as evidence for >>>> QGP. It thus constitutes a highly significant physics issue. >>>> >>>> The BRAHMs collaboration has data on this issue that constitute >>>> interesting, and in part unique ,contributions to the ongoing >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> The data include high pt suppression at y=0 and 2.2 for Au+Au >>>> collisions and lack of suppression in d+Au collisions. This >>>> information was presented at the public colloquium at BNL on June >>>> 17th by Ian Bearden, and shown at the NN2003 conference by Claus >>>> Ekman Joergensen and JJG (it even made the 9 o'clock news in the >>>> Russian channel 1). The other collaborations had manuscripts ready >>>> for submission on June 17th and have submitted them. >>>> >>>> Starting with the discussions in Krakow, a very significant effort >>>> has been going on to produce a manuscript for submission to PRL. A >>>> heavy analysis and paper writing effort has been going on. The aim >>>> is >>>> to be ready to submit a mansucript on Tuesday. We feel that it is >>>> absolutely essential for the 'renommée' of the BRAHMS collaboration >>>> to publish its results on the shortest possible time scale and >>>> thereby maintain its competitiveness within the RHIC program and on >>>> the international scene. >>>> >>>> I enclose a copy of the present state of the manuscript. Many >>>> discussions regarding the analysis have been going on between >>>> (mainly) BNL and NBI. Likewise many contributions to the manuscript >>>> draft have been incorporated in the last week (DB, FV, SS, KH, MM, >>>> JBZ, IGB, HB and others). Many have helped with input to the >>>> analysis >>>> (TST, HI etc..). >>>> >>>> Monday will be a crucial day. The analysis will hopefully settle >>>> down >>>> , and 'final' figures will be produced. You will already have seen >>>> various drafts of the manuscript under development on hte Brahms >> >>>> list. >>>> Nevertheless, we ask you to consider the present manuscript with its >>>> physics information and give us tomorrow your opinion on it. >>>> Naturally, any changes will be circulated immediately to the >>>> collaboration for further approval. >>>> >>>> We apologise for the rush, which is, however, dictated by the need >>>> to >>>> make public the BRAHMS results to the community as soon as possible >>>> and by the fact that many of the central people are/will be away in >>>> the coming weeks due to planned vacation and travel. Thus we propose >>>> this parallellism of action. Otherwise we do not see a submission >>>> before mid-August, with the consequences that this implies. >>>> >>>> with best regards >>>> and hoping to hear from you >>>> JJG >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc. >>>> Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. >>>> Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 >>>> 16. >>>> UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16. >>>> Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk. >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> <high-pt36.pdf><high-pt36.ps> > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Dieter Roehrich | > Fysisk institutt | Email: Dieter.Rohrich@fi.uib.no > Universitetet i Bergen | Tel: +47-555-82722 > Allegt. 55 | Fax: +47-555-89440 > N-5007 Bergen, Norway | WWW: http://www.fi.uib.no/php/drhrich.html > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 17:06:09 EDT