Dear Steve & Others:
I don't believe the present figure 5 (analytically) says
the width increases. It certainly suggests it. The (alternative) previous
figure 5 which was plotted with y-axis dN(ch)/deta(1/Nch) against N(ch) does
show it quantitatively. It also looks very much like the present fig 5.
The reason the old figure shows it is
that at a given Nch on the x-axis the sum of dNch/deta(1/Nch) must
add up literally to 1. Not so, I believe, in the new figure 5.
Additionally, it appears, Kharzeev and Levin gives the opposite of AMPT with
AMPT the right(our)way.
Chellis
=
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-brahms-l@bnl.gov [mailto:owner-brahms-l@bnl.gov]On Behalf Of
Stephen J. Sanders
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 11:21 AM
To: brahms-l@bnl.gov
Cc: gardhoje@nbi.dk
Subject: Re: width of dnd/deta
Dear Trine, Chellis, Dieter, and JJ:
Isn't this "width" effect already implicit in Fig. 5?
How can you have the three curves in this figure
spread out as they do and NOT have a decreasing
width with centrality?
Alternatively, how can one argue that this width effect
is of particular note and still claim that our data are
consistent with a limiting fragmentation picture.
As I see it, the relatively flat behavior at eta=4.5 reflects
the limiting fragmentation behavior. The upward slope
at eta=0 indicates the Ncol term. These two observations tell
me that if I were to renormalize the various curves in Fig. 1 to
unity at eta=0, the curves for the more central collisions will
have the narrower half-widths.
Regards, Steve
...steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Nov 26 2001 - 10:12:13 EST