Dear JH
Thanks for your comments.
I reply in-line below.
cheers
JJ
Dear Jens Jørgen and collaborators,
I have a few comments on the draft.
Title: In my personal opinion, the title is somewhat too provocative.
When readers see a title "Role of partonic collisions in the ....",
which sounds almost like a theoretical paper, they naturally expect
to get an answer to the question of "what is a role of partonic collision?"
But I think our results don't/can't give an answer to the question as we
said in the text. At the summary/conclusion it reads " we find good
consistency with the gluon saturation model, .... but the data can be
equally well reproduced by other models not requiring saturation
effect..." In that case, do we still want to put the "big" question in the
title?
It depends on how you read it:
Either you expect an answer to be given, or you expect the question raised to be adressed.
The current title is written from the second perspective.
In the old days physicists liked to start their articles: 'On the role of ... '.
I am kind of partial to that style, but realize that I will probably loose.
There are a few wrong statements:
- page 3: "The BRAHMS experiment consists of ... for measuring
exclusive charged particle..."
We measure inclusive and semi-inclusive spectra, but certainly can't
measure exclusive particle spectra.
- page 4: "Particle densities are deduced from the observed energy
loss in the SiMA and TMA elements..."
We only use SiMA for the particle density measurements. TMA is only
used for the centrality determination.
- page6: "...but on the number of binary parton collisions..."
Ncoll is expected to scale with hard collisions but it is number of
binary nucleon-nucleon collisions.
Thanks for the concrete suggestions. We' ll include them, together with many other comments in the next revision of the draft.
JH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje" <gardhoje@nbi.dk>
To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov>
Cc: <gardhoje@nbi.dk>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:40 AM
Subject: MULT PAPER. vers. 33. That's it.
> Dear friends,
>
> Attached please find version 3.3 of the paper. Steve and I consider this the
> final version, i.e. the one that goes for discussion to the collaboration.
> We hope for many constructive comments.
>
> Steve has updated all tables and numbers. Michael has contributed with
> references and a revtex 4 version. Hiro has made the figures
> (inspect the kansas account : pii3.brahms.bnl.gov/~kansas/dndeta01/ )
>
> I'm sure that Steve (when he wakes up EST) will update the kansas account
> with this document and with the latest
> figures (1-5 and alternative 5), so that it will available to all later this
> evening.
>
> There has been a fair discussion with many people already -also outside the
> paper committee- on the figures and the associated text.
> It appears that there is a majority that favor the Npart plot (fig.5 ) over
> the Nch plot (alternative fig. 5) and a majority in favor of keeping the
> fragmentation plot (fig.2.). This is also Steve's and my point of view.
> So this is the format of the present paper.
>
> There has been discussion on the title over the last 24 hrs.: I have
> tentatively invented a new title - which I actually think is not just
> populistic:
> 'Role of parton collisions in the production of charged particles in
> 100AGeV+100AGeV Au+AU collisions at RHIC.'
>
> This is in fact what we explore via the measurements and the comparisons to
> the relevant models.
> The old and very standard title is commented out in the paper.
>
> There are obviously details that will need to be adjusted in the text, also
> based on input from the entire
> collaboration, but the data and thus the basic results are not expected to
> change. The rest is thus mainly details of presentation and perhaps some
> fine tuning of the text length.
>
> We are prepared to announce tomorrow, wednesday, the paper to BNL and the
> other experiments.
> This just entails submitting the title and the abstract (SO COMMENT
> IMMEDIATELY ON THIS; PLEASE).
>
> The ambition is to receive input from all interested parties very rapidly
> (by the end of the week) so that (depending on the degree of criticism by
> sceptics) we may be ready to post the entire draft to the other RHIC
> spokespeople by early next week and submit to PRL shortly afterwards.
>
> cheers
> JJ
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Nov 20 2001 - 15:47:05 EST