Re: BRAHMS first publication

From: J.H. Lee (jhlee@sgs1.hirg.bnl.goV)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 13:37:04 EST

  • Next message: Christian Holm Christensen: "Re: White background on plots (fwd)"

    Dear Jens Jorgen, and BRAHMS collaborators,
    
    Thank you for your comments.  I cannot agree with you more
    on your point that "we MUST show our face to the public" ASAP.
    But I have a feeling that you might have misundstood some of my
    arguments. Let me clarify a couple points that you've made.
    
    1. The proposal is NOT to delay our first publication. It can even
    expedite the procedure. We already have all particle ratios (pi-/pi+,
    K-/K+, pbar/p, pi/K) in MRS at 90 degree to go. I believe the material
    is strong enough to be published.  To make the publication even nicer,
    we can (but don't have to) certainly include h+, h- spectra since we
    have nice spectra already.
    
    2. The second paper I've proposed , rapidity dependent pbar/p ratio, can
    follow immediately.  I don't think no other experiment can come up with
    pbar/p ratios at 4degree,  and at 40/45 degree in a month or two no matter
    how hard they push for.   This can make really a SYSTEMATIC and unique
    measurements.
    
    3. I don't believe that the second paper I mentioned above would interfere
    with
    the process of publishing the dN/deta (multiplicity)  paper.
    
    Regards, JH
    
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jens Jorgen Gaardhoje" <gardhoje@nbi.dk>
    To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov>
    Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:13 AM
    Subject: Re: BRAHMS first publication
    
    
    >
    >
    > Dear JH and BRAHMS friends.
    >
    > Many thanks for your proposal, JH.
    > I concur with you that we have material for more publications. I do not
    > , however,
    > think that we can live with the inevitable delays following from more
    > grandiose ambitions.
    > BRAHMS needs visibility ASAP.
    >
    > My feeling is the following:
    > 1. publish pbar/p with present content on the shortest possible time
    > scale.
    >    I think we should keep the pi ratios and the K's as this gives
    > confidence in the entire      analysis and supports the physics
    > conclusion.
    >    If the  p/pbar at 60 or 40 deg. is available within the next 2 weeks
    > we add the point
    >    to the   plots for better coverage. Else it will come in a later
    > publ.
    >
    > 2. The mult.paper has next priority. It should also go in very fast,
    > else PHOBOS will preempty the story. We now have dN/deta estimates from
    > 5 systems: si, Tiles, BB, MTPC1-tracks, T1-tracks.
    > To me the entire story looks very consistent.
    >
    > 3. The slopes and betters comprehensive ratios and DN/Dy can follow soon
    > afterwards or even go in  simultaneously. I have just not seen any of
    > this yet, so I would think that it will take longer to produce a final
    > paper than item 1. By that time scale I would guess that we have the MC
    > acceptance corrections for the FS also so that we may address DN/DY or
    > at least DN2/DnDpt at forward angles.
    >
    > I think it is a fatal mistake to aim at including as much as possible in
    > each paper at the expense of delays. At the rate the other experiments
    > are going (and with no scruples) we MUST show our face to the public. If
    > we drag our feet, nobody will remember us for the extra point, but they
    > will certainly remember that we came after the train had left.
    > I would hate to go and argue for upgrades to BRAHMS if we don't have
    > results out.
    >
    > best regards to all
    >
    > JJ
    >
    > PS 1: Thanks to RAMI for converting the papers to Latex.
    >
    > PS 2: Who will look into the Nch/Npart-pair vs Npart? Why is our curve
    > so flat? There is physics in the shape of this curve. Is is because we
    > need a better geom. model. or because the momentum range is different
    > from PHOBOS and PHENIX?
    >
    > PS 3: I eagerly await comments on the physics in the 2 paper drafts from
    > the rest of the collaboration. Don't hold back!
    >
    > >
    > > Dear Collaborators,
    > >
    > > For the first publication of BRAHMS,  I would like to propose
    > > that we write two separate papers (letters) on the particle ratios
    > > instead of one which is currently drafted.  I believe this is NOT
    > > at cost of sacrificing qualities and timing of our first
    > > publication(s).
    > >
    > > - The time to take to submit our first paper should be similar
    > >   (or shorter) as we currently planed ~ 1 month
    > > - By adding another unique result, ratios from MRS at
    > >   40/45 degree,  we can publish more systematic measurements
    > > - We have nice and unique results. We can write two high-quality
    > >   papers instead of one!
    > > - The time gap between two papers can be less than a month.
    > >
    > > My proposals for the two papers are
    > >
    > > 1) "Rapidity and centrality dependent pbar/p ratio in Au+Au Collisions
    > > at sqrt(s)=130AGeV".
    > >
    > > and
    > >
    > > 2) "Transverse-momentum and centrality dependent particle ratios
    > > (and spectra) at Mid-Rapidity in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s)=130AGeV".
    > >
    > >
    > > The first one is to concentrate on pbar/p ratios including data sets
    > > from
    > > Mid-rapidity at 40/45, 90 degrees and  FS at 4 degree:
    > > This will give very nice SYSTEMATIC measurements on net-proton
    > > distributions.
    > > - Systematic: 3 rapidity points instead of two
    > > - Unique ratios: 4 degree, 40/45 degree
    > > - I think we can produce particle ratios at MRS 40/45 degree in a
    > > month.
    > >
    > > The second paper includes pi-/pi+, K-/K+, pbar/p, K/pi ratios from MRS
    > > at 90 degree:
    > > - Independent measurements
    > > - High quality PID
    > > - Wide pt coverage, especially for pbar/p
    > > - Ratios at high pt (>1GeV/c) are not yet published
    > > - Particle spectra also can be included
    > > - This paper can be submitted first.
    > >
    > > Let me repeat. We have nice and unique results.
    > > I believe we can write two nice papers on particle ratios/(spectra)
    > > from our
    > > two spectrometers in a couple of month.
    > >
    > > Regards, JH
    > >
    >
    > --
    > ____________________________________________________
    > JENS JORGEN GAARDHOJE
    > Assoc. Prof. of Physics, Dr. Scient.
    >
    > Niels Bohr Institute,
    > University of Copenhagen
    > Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen
    > Denmark.
    >
    > Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09 (dir)
    >      (+45) 35 32 52 09 (secr)
    > Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16
    > Email: gardhoje @ nbi.dk
    > Home page: http://alf.nbi.dk/~gardhoje
    >
    > -Chair Ph. D. School of Physics at NBI.F.AFG.
    >  (secr. Frank Kristensen 35 32 04 41, Ørsted Lab.)
    > -Member Danish National Commission for UNESCO
    >  (secr. Ulla Holm 35 32 52 72, NBI)
    > ___________________________________________________
    >
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 25 2001 - 13:37:45 EST