One more possibility to consider- We should very shortly be starting work on our next multiplicity paper at 200 AGeV. In that paper we should be able to greatly compress the discussion of experimental detail since little will have changed from the current paper. That might allow a reasonable discussion along the lines outlined below. Just a thought... ...steve on 8/3/01 6:09 PM, Ion-Sorin Zgura at zis@rcf2.rhic.bnl.gov wrote: > > Dear Steve, > > We send you some comments on the paper "Charged particle .... ": > > Taking into account the idea on the possible > dependence of the total number of charged particles on the amount of > hadronic rescattering we believe that a comparison with HIJING predictions > and UrQMD predictions, respectively, because of their very different > assumptions. For example, the charged particle multiplicity predicted by > the HIJING Code is - for impact parameters in the range [0.0;17.0] Fm for > all rapidities - mch=1182+/-20.4 (mtot=2137), and the same quantity, > predicted by UrQMD Code, for the same conditions, is mch=1820 (mtot=3143). > This observation can be considered for the role of the subnucleonic > processes, too. The importance of the collision geometry can be treated in > two aspects, too. First of all, we can compare the multiplicities in the > full rapidity range and in the midrapidity range {[-2.2;+2.2]}. The > obtained values using UrQMD codes are: mch=1235.0+/-41.1, > mtot=2072.0+/-68.3, respectively. Using HIJING Code the following values > are obtained: mch =711.8+/-14.7, mtot=1230.0+/-25.4. > Therefore, a higher termalization can be supposed in the central region too. > The second way > can be related to a phenomenological geometric picture of the relativistic > nuclear collisions (C.Besliu, Al.Jipa - Rev.Roum.Phys.33(1988)409, > Rom.J.Phys.37(1992); Al.Jipa - J.Phys.G: Nucl.Part.Phys.22(1996)231), > adapted for colliders (C.Besliu et al - Rom.Rep.Phys.52(8,9)(2000)). The > calculation of the participant number can be performed at each impact > parameter and compared with the simulation code predictions (Analysis Note > 17). > There is a good agreement (including Table I from this paper). A comment > can be introduced on the limiting fragmentation, too. This assumption was > used to introduce > so-called "cumulative effect" (see, for example, A.M.Baldin - > Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.IV(1980)95, C.Besliu et al - Nucl.Phys.A672(2000)446). > This effect can be related to the fluctuations and non-equilibrium > processes. Finally, a short unimportant request: after the last election > the Ministry of Research merged (jointed) with Romanian Ministry of > National Education; therefore, now we have Romanian Ministry of Education > and Research. If it is possible to complete this denomination will be > very nice for us. > > Thank you! > > Sincerely yours, > > Alexandru JIPA > Calin BESLIU > Sorin ZGURA > Catalin RISTEA >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 21:49:54 EDT