Dear Claus and JJ, a few comments: abstract second sentence: remove "and consistent with significant significant nuclear transparency" Many scenarios may result in ratios like the ones we have measured. And the main message of our paper is NOT to prove/disprove nuclear transparency, but to present solid data which may shed light on the dynamics of the collision. See Chellis' comment. third sentence: remove "source in chemical equilibrium and" If we use statistcal models AND interprete the parameters as T and mu_b, we implicitely assume chemical equilibrium. We cannot deduce from our data and the fitting to a statistical model chemical equilibrium. This sentence has to go out! Page 2: second column, first para.: add a sentence about our acceptance in pt, i.e. that we typically cover pt-ranges from x to y . Page 3: first column, second paragraph, first sentence: add a space between approx. and 2 first column, last sentence, sec. c.,first s.: remove "This is consistent with the onset of the boost invariant plateau around midrapidity proposed by Bjorken." see comment above and Chellis' comment. Page 4: Fig.4: remove the fit (pbar/p)**(1/4). As Michael nicely pointed out, we have good reasons for the (pbar/p)**(1/3) curve, but no physics argument for the (1/4) fit. add the predictions from the statistical model (Becattini et. al.) Why did you take out this curve???? It can't be too difficult to replot the curve from Fig. 4, PHYS REV, C64, 024901. The authors have stated in their paper that the K-/K+ ratio is driven by the pbar/p ratio and his little dependence on T. And that is what we see. second column, first para.: remove "that can be expressed by a power law ..." See comment above. A fit to a (1/4) power law without a physics motivation is useless. remove "Comparison if the two relations indicates the universal relationship ,,,," See comments above. Too speculative. last sentence: Rephrase sentence e.g. like this: "Within the framework of the statistcal model ([Becattini], solid line), Fig. 4 suggests, that the baryon chemical potentials decrease from ub=120Mev at y=3 to ub=25MeV at y=0 - keeping in mind that this interpretion assumes local strangeness conservation." Second column, second para.: remove "suggesting the existence of a boost invariant midrapidity plateau dominated by particle production from the color field." Again, we have no evidence for such statements, and we do not measure particle ratios to discover/prove/disprove boost invariant plateaus. With best wishes, Dieter ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dieter Roehrich | Fysisk institutt | Email: Dieter.Rohrich@fi.uib.no Universitetet i Bergen | Tel: +47-555-82722 Allegt. 55 | Fax: +47-555-89440 N-5007 Bergen, Norway | WWW: http://www.fi.uib.no/php/drhrich.html On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Claus O. E. Jorgensen wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Version 3.02 of the ratios paper is now ready. You can find it here: > > http://www.nbi.dk/~ekman/RatioDraft3.02.ps > > Thanks for the many comments from many of you. Much, but of course not all, has found > its way into the manuscript. > > Finally we have decided to drop the AMPT comparison. Only the K ratios do not agree so > well. The discussion takes space and the calc. will clutter the otherwise striking fig 3. > We'll save that for a later comparisonor talks. > > We are now at the point where new mods. to the text introduce new errors. > The length is also OK now. > > A careful last proof reading of numbers would be appreciated by fresh eyes. The ambition is > to submit wednesday afternoon. > > regards > Claus and JJ > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 06:44:44 EDT