HI, Just thought I would throw in my two cents. I think JH's idea is a good one. We should spend a few days weighing the advantages of each. I think it is fair to say that the MRS data is in better shape at the present than the FFS. This is mainly due to the fact that the vertex smearing is not a problem for the 90 degree and prephaps background is less an issue so there is less noise in the tof vs p scatter plot. No matter what I think that a paper on the ratios can some out shortly. ----- Original Message ----- From: J.H. Lee <jhlee> To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:37 PM Subject: Re: BRAHMS first publication > 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 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 08:10:00 EST