Hei Ian, On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Ian Bearden wrote: > 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? what is the physics reason for **1/4? simple thermal models say **1/3, I am not aware of any quark counting argument, dynamical model etc. which suggests 1/4. Sure, we can parameterize our data with 1/4, but what do we learn from that? > 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. No, I am looking at the latest version. The Becattini curve is missing - which is the only curve justified by physics (and even this is not really true...). Fig. 4 with Becattini and **1/3 is the way to go. If you want we can have the **0.24 fit as a parametrization of our data - but the only thing we can say is "to guide the eye". With best wishes, Dieter > > > -----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 - 08:10:30 EDT