Hi I updated mainly the experimental discussions (with errors,...) and also added a few places where the centrality range was either omitted or wrong (0-20%). The updated pdf can be found on http://www4.rcf.bnl.gov/~videbaek/analysis/auau62/dpAuAu.pdf The cvs repository tex file is also updated. F. Flemming Videbaek videbaek @ bnl.gov Brookhaven National Lab Physics Department Bldg 510D Upton, NY 11973 phone: 631-344-4106 cell : 631-681-1596 On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Ramiro Debbe wrote: > Hi All, > I attach here the dpAuAu paper with the modifications that address > the referee comments (magenta) I have also added a few more > references. Please read it and let us know your opinion. Flemming > will do some additional work in the blue sections. > Ramiro > <dpAuAu.pdf> > > On Sep 16, 2010, at 7:38 PM, Ramiro Debbe wrote: > >> Hi All, >> I have placed the dp paper and it possible modification in the >> Indico page. I have not had enough time to finish what I wanted to >> accomplish but I wrote some lines that we can discuss tomorrow. >> Ramiro >> On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Ramiro Debbe wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> I have placed the dp paper in the Indico agenda for tomorrow's >>> meeting. The paper has Flemming's comments (blue) as well as a new >>> version of the figures, and my comments (magenta). >>> Thanks, >>> Ramiro >>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:14 PM, Ramiro Debbe wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> I added some suggested changes to the dp paper to accommodate the >>>> referee comments (I used my old magenta color to highight that >>>> text). I was unable to see if I can still build the pdf version >>>> because rcf2 is not working well and I did my work on an rcas >>>> machine. I committed the changes back to CVS. Hopefully I can >>>> generate a pdf version before the meeting on Friday. >>>> Ramiro >>>> On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Ramiro Debbe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>> I was very exited when I saw the extent of the referee comments >>>>> and started looking at possible actions, I think we can improve >>>>> the paper greatly. >>>>> I went thru some of our references, found a few new ones, mainly >>>>> looking for a more recent point of view and I asked around >>>>> (mainly about comment 5) >>>>> I add some suggestions after the referee comments. >>>>> Ramiro >>>>> On Aug 6, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Murray, Michael J wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> FYI >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: prc_at_aps.org [mailto:prc_at_aps.org] >>>>>> Sent: Fri 8/6/2010 12:48 PM >>>>>> To: Murray, Michael J >>>>>> Subject: Your_manuscript CS10219 Arsene >>>>>> >>>>>> Re: CS10219 >>>>>> Rapidity dependence of deuteron production in Au+Au >>>>>> collisions at >>>>>> sqrt s NN=200 GeV >>>>>> by I. Arsene, I. G. Bearden, D. Beavis, et al. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Dr. Murray, >>>>>> >>>>>> The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees. >>>>>> Comments >>>>>> from the report appear below. >>>>>> >>>>>> These comments suggest that specific revisions of your >>>>>> manuscript are >>>>>> in order. When you resubmit your manuscript, please include a >>>>>> summary >>>>>> of the changes made and a succinct response to all >>>>>> recommendations or >>>>>> criticisms contained in the report. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yours sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>> Bradley Rubin >>>>>> Senior Assistant Editor >>>>>> Physical Review C >>>>>> Email: prc_at_ridge.aps.org >>>>>> Fax: 631-591-4141 >>>>>> http://prc.aps.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http://physics.aps.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> PROBLEMS WITH MANUSCRIPT: >>>>>> >>>>>> In reviewing the figures of your paper, we note that the >>>>>> following >>>>>> changes would be needed in order for your figures to conform to >>>>>> the >>>>>> style of the Physical Review. Please check all figures for the >>>>>> following problems and make appropriate changes in the text of >>>>>> the >>>>>> paper itself wherever needed for consistency. >>>>>> >>>>>> Figure(s) [4] >>>>>> Please rearrange power of 10 in axis label for >>>>>> clarity: Either >>>>>> (i) place the power of 10 as a factor, without >>>>>> parentheses, >>>>>> in front of the axis label quantity, changing the sign >>>>>> of the >>>>>> power as needed; or (ii) incorporate the power of 10 >>>>>> in the >>>>>> topmost or rightmost number on the scale. Please >>>>>> refer to >>>>>> the URL http://forms.aps.org/author/ >>>>>> h18graphaxislbls.pdf for a >>>>>> pictorial representation of the preferred forms for >>>>>> axis labels. >>>>>> >>>>>> Figure(s) [please check all and amend where necessary] >>>>>> The lettering in the axis labels and/or numbering size >>>>>> should be >>>>>> increased. Please ensure that all lettering is 2 mm or >>>>>> larger >>>>>> (1.5 mm for superscripts and subscripts) after scaling >>>>>> to the >>>>>> final publication size. Note that the column width is >>>>>> 8.6 cm >>>>>> (twice that amount plus gutter for extra wide figures). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please remove the redundant arXiv references for published >>>>>> papers. >>>>>> For your information, the editorial office checks the >>>>>> references at >>>>>> several crucial steps during the editorial process. A list of >>>>>> unnecessary >>>>>> arXiv references slows the process down considerably-- >>>>>> particularly so, >>>>>> if the list is long--and delays the processing of your >>>>>> manuscript. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that the copy editors will remove such redundant >>>>>> links during >>>>>> production for those papers that have been accepted for >>>>>> publication. >>>>>> However, any manual intervention carries the risk of >>>>>> inadvertently >>>>>> introducing mistakes. >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Report of the Referee -- CS10219/Arsene >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Executive Summary: >>>>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>>>> The paper is a straightforward, almost minimalist, presentation >>>>>> of a data set on proton and deuteron production in central Au+Au >>>>>> RHIC collisions over a wide range of rapidity, and antiproton and >>>>>> antideuteron production over a smaller range in rapidity. The >>>>>> data are interpreted in terms of a standard coalescence picture >>>>>> and an extracted phase space density; some trends are noted but >>>>>> no definite physics conclusions are drawn. As a simple data >>>>>> presentation exercise the paper is generally acceptable, though >>>>>> the physics impact of the data are significantly limited by >>>>>> being restricted to only central collisions in only one bin of >>>>>> centrality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Though I would not suggest it as a requirement for publication >>>>>> in the Physical Review, I would urge the authors to consider >>>>>> enlarging the paper to include data from a greater range of >>>>>> centrality classes -- based on the error bars shown in Fig 5 >>>>>> it certainly looks as though sufficient statistics would be >>>>>> available. >>>>>> >>>>>> Modulo that decision, the paper has a number of minor errors >>>>>> in the physics introduction which should be addressed, as >>>>>> detailed below. My basic recommendation, then, is that the >>>>>> paper will be suitable for publication with minor corrections. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Concerns: >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> (1) Centrality selection. The data presented in Fig 3 are for >>>>>> some >>>>>> particular event selection; but which? One needs to scan the >>>>>> paper in some detail (or use a computer text search) to find >>>>>> the lone sentence "We present ... AuAu collisions with a >>>>>> centrality >>>>>> range of 0-20%." in the first paragraph under Section II. >>>>>> Analysis. >>>>>> (Note that this sentence itself is not quite grammatically >>>>>> correct.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Physics: Why was this one, and only one, centrality range chosen >>>>>> for this analysis? There is no motivation mentioned in the paper >>>>>> at all, which is quite puzzling. The paper describes >>>>>> interpretation >>>>>> in terms of geometrical quantities such as the coherence volume >>>>>> implied >>>>>> by the B_2 measurement; it is only natural to ask, then, how >>>>>> these >>>>>> might change as the collision geometry/centrality is changed. To >>>>>> present data from only one centrality selection, with no >>>>>> explanation, >>>>>> seems quite odd and un-natural, and I would call it a glaring >>>>>> defect. >>>>>> There is of course a limit on available particle statistics, >>>>>> but it >>>>>> is far from clear (partly because there is so little detail >>>>>> provided >>>>>> on the error analysis) that no statement could be made for any >>>>>> other >>>>>> selections, even by breaking the current one into two. >>>>>> >>>>>> Analysis: The section on the data analysis should include a >>>>>> description >>>>>> of how the events were selected on centrality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Formatting: Assuming that the paper is to be published on just >>>>>> the >>>>>> central collision results, that fact should be made clear >>>>>> throughout >>>>>> the work: it should appear in the title, in the abstract, in the >>>>>> summary and in the captions of all the figures and tables. And, >>>>>> for that matter, the main data graphs such as Fig 3 should also >>>>>> state that these results are for the Au+Au collision system! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (2) Error analysis. The presentation in Table I does a good >>>>>> basic job >>>>>> of explaining the uncertainties: statistical errors are in the >>>>>> table, >>>>>> systematics are characterized in the text. All of the figures >>>>>> and >>>>>> tables should rise to this same standard: what is shown by the >>>>>> errors >>>>>> that are displayed? and what are the sizes of the other sources? >>>>>> >>>>>> Elsewhere the treatment of uncertainties is uneven. The >>>>>> discussion >>>>>> of errors from the feed-down correction in Section II.D is quite >>>>>> quantitative; while the preceding section II.C on particle >>>>>> identification describes inefficiencies and contaminations, but >>>>>> does >>>>>> not quote anything quantitative for the residual uncertainties >>>>>> from >>>>>> these effects. At a minimum the reader should be able to >>>>>> appreciate >>>>>> the relative contributions of statistical versus systematic >>>>>> uncertainties, and what the dominant source is for the >>>>>> systematic, >>>>>> for every quantity quoted and plotted in the paper. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (3) Abstract: "in contrast to lower energy data". This should be >>>>>> re-worded to make clear that it refers to data from collisions >>>>>> at lower collision energies, rather than lower secondary particle >>>>>> energies. >>>>>> >>>>>> (4) p1 col2: "surrounding ... medium ensure energy and momentum >>>>>> conservation". "Ensure" would be better as "allow" or "permit" >>>>>> or "enable". Conservation laws always "ensure" that they are >>>>>> followed; the role of the medium is to "allow" p + n -> d >>>>>> to proceed without the need to emit a photon. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest to change the sentence: "In free space ....." by the >>>>> following >>>>> "The surrounding medium created in the A+A collisions enables >>>>> this 2->1 process to >>>>> proceed while it conserves energy and momentum." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (5) p1 col2 "As deuterons are formed inside the expanding system" >>>>>> Is this really true? How do you know? One could make the simple >>>>>> argument that particle within the medium are colliding often >>>>>> enough, on the order of once per ~1-10 fm/c or faster in the time >>>>>> before freezeout, then the constituent protons and neutrons will >>>>>> on average be off their mass shell by ~200-20 MeV at any given >>>>>> moment; if this is true, then how can one even distinguish a >>>>>> deuteron bound state, whose binding energy is only 2 MeV? >>>>>> The bound/unbound distinction doesn't apply over such short >>>>>> time scales. >>>>>> The same misconception appears later in the same paragraph >>>>>> with the phrase "deuterons are most likely formed very near >>>>>> freeze-out". What, exactly, does "formed" mean here? In order >>>>>> for a p,n pair to be meaningfully distinguished as either bound >>>>>> or unbound, the degree to which they are off-mass-shell must be >>>>>> no larger than the bound-state binding energy. This implies that >>>>>> bound-state deuterons cannot even be _defined_ until ~100 fm/c >>>>>> have passed since the particles' last momentum transfer >>>>>> interaction, ie freezeout; this time frame cannot be described >>>>>> as "very near freezeout." It really makes no sense to say that >>>>>> deuterons are "formed" on a timescale faster than they can even >>>>>> be distinguished or defined, whether inside the colliding system >>>>>> or following freezeout, so this whole passage of the >>>>>> introduction is really misconceived. >>>>>> The reason that sudden-approximation coalescence models can >>>>>> work is more subtle, quantum mechanically. After the last >>>>>> momentum exchanges, ie freezeout, all the protons and neutrons >>>>>> will be in wavefunctions which span a range of masses around >>>>>> their free-particle on-shell rest mass. The off-shell >>>>>> combinations of momentum and energy will decay away with time, >>>>>> ie the amplitude of those parts of the wavefunctions will >>>>>> diminish and only the on-shell states will have significant >>>>>> amplitudes. So, looking into the future at the time of >>>>>> freezeout it is reasonable to count only the on-shell states >>>>>> for future accounting purposes; but the off-shell states are >>>>>> still present in the wavefunction at that time. >>>>>> For this reason, one can get reasonable answers from a >>>>>> coalescence model while neglecting these off-shell subtleties. >>>>>> But, by the same token, there is no excuse at this point in >>>>>> the field for leaving a sloppy definition of "formed" in the >>>>>> introduction to a paper like this, and the section should be >>>>>> rewritten without this misconception. >>>>>> >>>>> Even though recent publications (PHENIX) use similar language, I >>>>> detect a consensus >>>>> in the papers I read but mostly from the responses I get when I >>>>> asked other >>>>> colleagues with experience in the subject. I suggest we state >>>>> the following and add a recent paper: >>>>> >>>>> In the hot and dense system formed in high energy collisions, >>>>> the coalescence of nucleons into deuterons >>>>> is not possible before it reaches a stage where hadrons are >>>>> present, and even then, the low binding energy of deuterons >>>>> (2.24 MeV), >>>>> force this process to happen only late, near the so called >>>>> thermal freeze out, where the nuclear density is low but still >>>>> high enough to allow >>>>> for interactions that put all participants back on mass shell. >>>>> \cite{Ioffe} >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (6) p1 col2: "Coalescence models assume that the distribution >>>>>> of clusters..."; "density" or "phase-space density" would be >>>>>> better than "distribution" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (7) p1 col2 and Eq. 1: The references [1-3] quoted to >>>>>> introduce the notation of the coalescence picture in Eq. 1 >>>>>> are incomplete; they date from the Bevelac era (or earlier), >>>>>> when the notation C_2 was used for the proportionality >>>>>> similar to that in Eq. 1 but with cross sections rather than >>>>>> per-event densities. The B_2 notation used here was originated >>>>>> during the AGS fixed-target heavy-ion program, starting with >>>>>> E858 and then E864 and E878; and it is a rather glaring >>>>>> omission that not all of these experiments are referenced in >>>>>> this paper, which should be corrected. >>>>>> >>>>> We could drop the 1-3 or add to them a more recent review: >>>>> L.R.Csernai, J.I.Kapusta, Phys. Rep. 131, 223 (1986); >>>>> We should add the E858 E864 and E878 references. >>>>>> >>>>>> (8) p1 col2: Mention is made of the n/p ratio in lower-energy >>>>>> collision data, but the meaning and significance are not clear >>>>>> at all. What system was this for? Does this n/p ratio >>>>>> correspond to that of the incoming nuclei, or not? Is the >>>>>> implication that Eq. 1 should be modified, or assigned a 20% >>>>>> systematic error? If not, why not? The bare inclusion of >>>>>> this observation, without any details, explanation or >>>>>> implication is simply confusing and not helpful to the reader. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (9) p2 col1: "B_2 carries information about the cluster" >>>>>> What do you mean by "cluster"? Is it the deuteron itself, as >>>>>> implied on the previous page with the phrase "the distribution >>>>>> of clusters"? Or does "cluster" mean the system as a whole? >>>>>> Neither really makes sense; B_2 doesn't really tell you >>>>>> anything about the deuteron itself per se; and it's strange, >>>>>> as well as inconsistent with the previous page, to refer to >>>>>> refer to the whole system as a "cluster". >>>>>> >>>>> This sentence now reads bad. B_2 is related to the volume of the >>>>> source of deuterons. For a while >>>>> we tried to be general and used clusters to include d, He3, and >>>>> other heavier systems, I suggest to remove >>>>> the word cluster and replace by deuteron. And rewrite this >>>>> sentence: effective volume of the nuclear matter at the time >>>>> of coalescence >>>>> >>>>> In thermodynamical models that assume thermalized distributions >>>>> of nucleons, B2 carries information about the effective volume >>>>> of the nuclear matter at the time of coalescence: >>>>> [1–3]. >>>>> >>>>> more comments below point to our confusion of of coalescence >>>>> volume and deuteron source volume, we should just keep >>>>> coalescence volume. >>>>> >>>>>> (10) p2 col1: "B_2 ... is consistent with measurements of >>>>>> the deuteron wave-function." This is a very strange and >>>>>> jarring statement to read at this point in the paper, since >>>>>> there has been no discussion up to this point on how the >>>>>> deuteron's spatial properties figure into the value of B_2 >>>>>> through the coalescence process or otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> We need to move the next sentence where we mention the Wigner >>>>> functions up before this discussion. >>>>> By the way, the sentence mentioning Wigner functions is >>>>> describing a particular case of sudden-approximation coalescence >>>>> model. >>>>>> >>>>>> (11) Also, this statement is referenced to Ref 5, but only >>>>>> vague mention is made of what collision systems or what >>>>>> collision energies are being referred to; this makes it >>>>>> somewhat strange to read in the very next sentence that >>>>>>> = 4.9 GeV is the threshold of "high energy". It would >>>>>> be clearer to state the energy ranges, and at least whether >>>>>> heavy or light nuclei are involved, for all the data being >>>>>> referred to (this remark applies in several other places >>>>>> throughout the current paper, as already mentioned in >>>>>> point 8 above). >>>>> >>>>> Needs work >>>>>> >>>>>> (12) p2 col1: "assuming the region where the coalescence >>>>>> occurs has also a Gaussian shape" See point 5 above; the >>>>>> region which sources/radiates the nucleons is not the same >>>>>> thing as the region where coalescence occurs. Note also >>>>>> that "spatial profile" would be better than "shape" in >>>>>> this sentence. >>>>>> >>>>>> (13) p2 col1: "this ansatz ... facilitates comparison to >>>>>> interferometry radii". A traditional point; but, how does >>>>>> the comparison work in this case? First, should the R_G >>>>>> from the coalescence framework analysis be compared >>>>>> directly to any of the R parameters from HBT analysis? >>>>>> or is there a factor of 2, or pi, etc between them? >>>>>> Is this paper going to actually make the comparison? >>>>>> if not, then you should provide a reference to how the >>>>>> comparison should be done. >>>>>> >>>>> Shall we try that comparison? >>>>> >>>>>> (14) p2 col1: "However, it has been suggested that..." >>>>>> This certainly needs a reference, or several, at this point. >>>>>> >>>>> I agree we need that reference. Voloshin? >>>>> >>>>>> (15) p2 col1: The middle paragraph discusses the results >>>>>> of deuteron production following a quark coalescence picture, >>>>>> which is a subject of considerable current interest. However, >>>>>> the logic is not laid out clearly here. Isn't it true, for >>>>>> example, that if protons follow the quark coalescence picture >>>>>> and deuterons follow the nucleon coalescence picture, then >>>>>> deuterons automatically/necessarily follow quark coalescence >>>>>> as well? ie isn't quark coalescence for deuterons redundant >>>>>> with nucleon coalescence? and so not really an independent >>>>>> piece of information. Alternatively, is the statement that >>>>>> deuterons follow quark coalescence equivalent to B_2 being >>>>>> constant with pT? But here B_2 is not constant with pT, as >>>>>> we see in Fig 4; doesn't that have immediate implications for >>>>>> quark coalescence interpretation of the present data? >>>>>> In general this section should be written so as to make >>>>>> it clear to the reader what are, and are not, redundant versus >>>>>> independent pieces of information. >>>>>> >>>>> This requires reading the references we will add to accommodate >>>>> comment 14 >>>>> >>>>>> (16) p2 col1: The start of the discussion of discussion of >>>>>> phase-space densities in the last paragraph should have at >>>>>> least a few references right at the beginning, especially >>>>>> as to the motivations. Why is this an interesting quantity? >>>>>> The text mentions (i) an indicator or measure of the degree >>>>>> of equilibrium, which is directly connected to entropy, >>>>>> and (ii) "information about ... symmetrization efects". >>>>>> Reasonable enough; but what's the upshot? What do the results >>>>>> shown in Fig 5 demonstrate? Trends are noted in Section III, >>>>>> but what about the basic magnitude of the measured quantity? >>>>>> is it high, is it low? >>>>>> >>>>> It is low! but I agree we could invest more effort here. It will >>>>> also add to the summary section. (More reading to be done) >>>>> >>>>>> (17) p2 col2: The result of Eq. 5 is correct only for a true >>>>>> global equilibrium, with one universal temperature and where >>>>>> the particles have equal access to the entire relevant volume. >>>>>> The text acknowledges this, but only in a roundabout way with >>>>>> the later remark "we are ignoring the collective motion of the >>>>>> particles", as collective motion is a departure from true >>>>>> global equilibrium (also, "neglecting the possibility of" is >>>>>> more accurate than "ignoring" here). But since collective >>>>>> motion probably is the case in RHIC Au+Au collisions, from the >>>>>> B_2 results shown here as well as a host of other evidence, >>>>>> it is left unclear to what extent Eq.'s 5 - 9 should still be >>>>>> considered relevant. For example, in the statement farther down, >>>>>> attributed to Ref 23, that strong longitudinal flow could >>>>>> significantly reduce pion phase space densities, it is not clear >>>>>> if this is a true result about the actual density or an artifact >>>>>> of Eq. 5 and its corollaries being invalid in the extraction of >>>>>> the measured phase-space density. >>>>>> In general the utility of a framework which assumes global >>>>>> equilibrium to a system which probably exhibits only local >>>>>> equilibrium needs to be explained more carefully; if T is a >>>>>> function of space, then is Eq. 5 still true at a point? In >>>>>> the case of collective motion being significant, is Eq. 3 >>>>>> defined over some relevant coherence volume? etc. >>>>> >>>>> Needs work >>>>>> >>>>>> (18) p2 col2: "the maximum space averaged phase-space density, >>>>>> which is at the center of the Gaussian source." Sorry, but >>>>>> this makes no sense at al: a spatial average is not defined >>>>>> for different points within the space. The confusion over >>>>>> the relevant spatial volumes mentioned in point 17 above >>>>>> is clearly causing serious trouble here. >>>>> >>>>> Need to read Pratt paper ref[26] >>>>>> >>>>>> (19) p2 col2: In Eq. 9, is R_G a function of particle >>>>>> momentum, particularly pT? Presumably so, and if so then it >>>>>> would be useful to write the dependence explicitly here. >>>>> >>>>> According to eq.2 we should make R_G pt dependent. >>>>>> >>>>>> (20) Minor formatting: the text following Eq. 5 should >>>>>> probably be left-justified rather than indented. It is not >>>>>> clear whether the text following Eq.'s 4 and 6 should or >>>>>> should not start new paragraphs, either. >>>>>> >>>>>> (21) The presentation of Eq. 6 in terms of chemical potential >>>>>> is formally correct, but at the same time obscure -- in the >>>>>> dilute limit, what is the value of these chemical potentials? >>>>>> Is it just the particle mass, which would make Eq. (6) >>>>>> equivalent to exp[-mT/T] at all rapidities? or does it vary >>>>>> significantly with the net baryon density, which changes >>>>>> considerably with rapidity (as BRAHMS has made clear in >>>>>> other measurements)? >>>>> >>>>> We need to go back to the text book. >>>>>> >>>>>> (22) p5 col2: "expect the ratio of the proton and antiproton >>>>>> phase densities to be flat"; is this as a function of >>>>>> rapidity? or pT? or both? >>>>>> >>>>>> (23) Summary, but also relevant to several sections of the >>>>>> paper: There is a reasonable interpretation here that the >>>>>> B_2 and phase space density measurements have information >>>>>> about the existence of collective flow, particularly what >>>>>> is called radial flow. This is certainly valuable and >>>>>> worth publishing. However, the current paper doesn't say >>>>>> much about whether these implications are or are not >>>>>> consistent with the great body of work that has now been >>>>>> done on modeling RHIC A+A collisions with hydrodynamics. >>>>>> It is not necessarily the responsibility of this paper >>>>>> to make a full-blown analysis, but the reader deserves some >>>>>> basic orientation: are the results shown here generally >>>>>> consistent with existing hydrodynamical models? or is >>>>>> there some kind of surprise or contradiction brewing? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> We knew our physics points were weak. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Brahms-dev-l mailing list >>>>>> Brahms-dev-l_at_lists.bnl.gov >>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-l >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Brahms-dev-l mailing list Brahms-dev-l_at_lists.bnl.gov https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-dev-lReceived on Sun Sep 26 2010 - 17:07:05 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 26 2010 - 17:08:07 EDT