A question to Dieter: You say that there is no 'good reason' to fit the data with the exponent 1/4. How can you justify this, when the data clearly favor the exponent 1/4, and in fact a fit to K-/K+=(pbar/p)^a gives a=0.24? I guess you have been looking at an old version of the paper, and not the new one (which was out over 12 hours ago :-) ). In the new plot, both curves are shown, which is the way to go, I think. Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-brahms-l@bnl.gov [mailto:owner-brahms-l@bnl.gov]On Behalf Of > Dieter Rohrich > Sent: 2. juli 2002 12:44 > To: brahms-l > Subject: Re: ratios 3.00 (fwd) > > > > 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 - 07:46:09 EDT