Hi Trine Many thanks for your plots and comments. I think that Trine has done some nice homework and that we should plot the p+p data on our figure 3 in one (or two of the panels) of the panels. I would probably suggest the 0-5% centrality panel, which will be the least cluttered if we use points for the p+p. We might report the p+p trend as a dotted line in the 40-50 % panel also. HIRO, STEVE? I suggest to include a short discussion on the widths, in relation to p+p data. I have not had the time today to digest whether Michaels last changes were made to Stees last changes or ...? I volunteer to spend some time tomorrow, tuesday GMT+1, and take another go at the text - if nobody touches it in the meantime. cheers JJ PS: Trine any comments on the Ncoll affair? ________________________________ Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje Assoc. prof. Dr. Scient. Chair Ph.D: school of Physics NBI.f.AFG. (secretariat. 35 32 04 41) Chair science committee. UNESCO Natl. Commission. (secretariat. 33 92 52 16) Office: Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09 Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16 ________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trine S. Tveter" <trine@lynx.uio.no> To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov> Cc: <trine@lynx.uio.no> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 5:25 PM Subject: Re: width of dnd/deta > Dear Michael and others, > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Michael Murray wrote: > > > I think it is worth discussing the > > change of shape with centrality even if it only reflects the > > growth of hard collisions at central rapidity. What is |eta| RMS for pp and and > > what is the reference? > > I calculated the width for pp data (UA5, pp at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV - > G.J. Alner et al., Z. Phys 33, 1 (1986).) The numbers were read from > their figure 1 a). Result: RMS_pp = 2.36+-0.03, which compared to our > data is between the RMS values for central and peripheral collisions. > The pp point is plotted as a purple circle in the upper panel of > the figure: > > http://lynx.uio.no/trine/brahms/mult/RMS_with_pp_AMPT.gif > > together with our sets of RMS values for 200 (red) and 130 (blue) GeV, > going from central to peripheral collisions from left to right. > The error bars on the pp point includes (approximately) inaccuracy > in reading from the figure. > > In the lowermost panel of the figure, the pp dN/dEta (purple) and our > dN/dEta/(Npart/2) distribution for 0-5% (red) and 40-50% central (blue) > collisions are compared. > > I made a similar calculation for the AMPT calculations at 200 GeV, > taking the numbers from AMPT_xx_xx.dat files in the kansas account. > The RMS values (calculated over the same Eta interval as for the > experimental data) follow the experimental points very closely, > (green points in the upper panel - on top of the red ones.) > > Our Figure 4 indicates that the widths as a function of centrality > evolve differently from 130 to 200 GeV for experimental and > theoretical results. I think the theoretical RMS values for 130 GeV > will vary less with centrality than the experimental ones. Are the > Kharzeev & Levin and AMPT dN/dEta numbers at 130 GeV explicitly > available somewhere? It might be interesting to calculate the > theoretical RMS values to find out more about possible interpretations. > > > We may also want to reference to SPS distributions. > > Do we have any good SPS references covering a large enough region in Eta > and where it's possible to compare different centralities (Dieter?) > > Best wishes, > Trine > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Nov 26 2001 - 14:00:10 EST
