Dear Jens Jorgen,
the Hard/soft scaling equation we use is
incorrect and clearly in contradiction to Fig 5.
"... we fit the observed dependencies to a functional
$dN/d\eta/(N_{part}/2)=\alpha\cdot
N_{part}+\beta \cdot N_{coll}$.
For rapidities $\eta=$ 0 and 3.0 we obtain:
$\alpha=0.98 \pm 0.10$ and , $1.05 \pm 0.08$ and
$\beta=0.25 \pm 0.04, 0.09 \pm 0.03$ respectively.
So at eta=3, beta is almost zero and this equation says that
dN/dEta * 2/Npart should grow linearly with Npart with a slope
of 1.05. However in Fig 5 we see that for eta=3.
dN/dEta * 2/Npart =~ 1.05 independent of Npart
In Kharzee and Leven (which is now PLB {\bf B 523} 79 (2001))
the following equation is used.
dN Npart
-- = (1-X)*npp * ----- + X*npp *Ncoll
dEta 2
Thus I think that we should write
dN Npart
-- = alpha * ----- + Beta * Ncoll
dEta 2
I think this is what Trine fitted to.
It is also clear that the errors on alpha and beta are
anticorrelated since the total value of dN/dEta is fixed.
Therefore I suggest that we use +- for the errors on alpha
and -+ for the errors on beta.
The corresponding latex is
Using for $N_{coll}$ the
values estimated in ~\cite{Kharzeev_and_Nardi} we fit the observed
dependencies to a functional $dN/d\eta=\alpha\cdot
N_{part}/2+\beta \cdot N_{coll}$. For pseudorapidities $\eta=$ 0 and 3.0 we
obtain:
$\alpha=0.98 \pm 0.10$ and , $1.05 \pm 0.08$ and
$\beta=0.25 \mp 0.04, 0.09 \mp 0.03$ respectively.
For comparison we find $\alpha=0.99 \pm 0.09, 0.99 \pm 0.07, $
and $\beta=0.18 \mp 0.04, 0.02 \mp 0.04 $ at
$\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=130 GeV.
and the new ref [3] is
\bibitem{Kharzeev_and_Levin} D. Kharzeev and E. Levin %nucl- th/0108006
Phys. Lett. {\bf B 523} 79 (2001), and private communication. %
Michael Murray, Cyclotron TAMU, 979 845 1411 x 273, Fax 1899
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 10:41:48 EST