Hi All, I have worked on the dpAuAu paper one more time, I mainly looked at Flemming's blue sections. The tex file is back into CVS. Now we need Michael to go back to the referee comments, make sure that the changes in the text address all the comments, and draft the letter to the editor explaining and listing the changes and additions made to the text. That would put us very close to resubmission, but the discussion is in no way closed. Lets have another round this Friday. The most recent version can be found at: http://www4.rcf.bnl.gov/~debbe/dpAuAu.pdf Ramiro On Sep 26, 2010, at 3:17 PM, flemming videbaek wrote: > 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 Wed Sep 29 2010 - 18:36:33 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Sep 29 2010 - 18:37:39 EDT