Dear Claus and Jens Jorgen,
The paper looks very nice!
I have only one general comment on the interpretation and a few
corrections and suggestions.
The general comment is the following.
It seems that the emerging picture from the paper is a superposition
of several (how many?, infinite number?) equilibrated emission sources
with same temperature but different chemical potentials (decreasing
as one approaches the beam rapidity region).
An alternative interpretation would be a single fireball (same T and MuB)
with some contribution from other (different) production processes at
large rapidities associated with the original colliding nucleons.
Is there any argument to exclude such a (simple) scenario ?
Below are some corrections, suggestions, questions etc..
(on draft version 3.02)
In the abstract:
- l.3: "with significant significant" should be "with significant"
- l.4: "at forward rapidity" -> "at forward rapidities"
- l.5: I suggest to replace th sentence "An interpretation of ...
indicates ..." by "An analysis of .... suggests an emission from
chemically equilibrated sources ..."
On page 1:
- left column, l.3 from bottom: "pseudo-rapidity" instead of
"pseudo rapidity"
- right column, second paragraph: "At midrapidity, the measured
antiparticle to particle ratios are near unity"
To be rigorous, pbar/p = 0.75 +- 0.04 is not really near unity ???
rather significantly different from 1.
On page 2:
- Caption of Fig.1: "(a) and (b) separation .." should be
"(a) and (b) Separation .."
- Right col., l.15 from bottom: "differences" instead of "differneces"
On page 3:
- In Fig.2:
Right panel: I suggest to indicate a range for the rapidity
y = 2.0-2.6 instead of y~2 (the text should be modified accordingly).
Left panel: looks like the last pt bin for K-/K+ deviates from the
average value. Is this due to statistics ? If so, I would suggest to
remove this point from the figure.
- In the caption, first line: remove "as" in "ratios as on transverse"
- Left col., second paragraph, l.1: "Fig.1" instead of "fig.1"
- end of this paragraph: "to STAR's .." to be replaced by "to those
measured by STAR .."
- left col., l.2 from bottom: "essentially" instead of "essentialy"
- Right col., l.4: "also lends itself"
End of the same paragraph: I suggest to replace the sentence
starting with "Recently ..." by "Recently, particle ratios measured
at sqrt(sNN)=130 GeV in the midrapidity region have been ...."
- Next paragraph, l.3: "Values of T = .. and mu_B= were found"
instead of "T= .. and mu_B = ..."
- line 3 in same para.: "sqrt(s_NN)" instead of "sqrt(s_nn)"
- same para.: We give a value of mu_B=29+-8 MeV at MR.
PHOBOS (Ref.[11]) found mu_B=26+-2 MeV at MR using exactly the same
procedure.
Question: why our error bar is so large ?
Should we quote here the value of PHOBOS?
- In Fig.3: One could perhaps show also negative rapidities by
symmetrizing the data. The figure would be much nicer! I like
very much this figure!
Data at negative rapidities could be shown with different (open)
symbols. We are allowed to do it (mirror) since the reaction Au+Au is
perfectly symmetric.
On page 4:
- Caption of Fig.4:
"Correlation between strange meson and baryon
antiparticle-to-particle ratios" instead of "Correlation between
strange meson and baryon ratios"
"Ref.[15]" instead of "ref.[15]" and
"Ref.[13]" instead of "ref.[13]"
- Left col, l.6: "In Figure 4" instead of "In figure 4"
I suggest to modify the 2 first sentences in this paragraph
as follows -> "In Figure 4, we show the correction between the K-/K+
and pbar/p ratios. The latter are measured at ..."
- Left col., l.9: "Fig.4" instead of "fig.4"
- Right col., l.7: "mu_s = 1/4 \times mu_q" instead of
"mu_s = 1/4 . mu_q"
References:
- [1] N.Herrmann et al. : I am not sure that this paper has to do with
antiparticle/particle ratios ??? To be checked (I could not find it
online!)
- [2] -> "H.Satz, Rep. ..." instead of "H.Satz. Rep. ..."
- [6] -> "Nucl. Phys. A698" should be "Nucl. Phys. \bf{A698}"
- [7] -> "B523" should be "\bf{B523}"
- [8] and [9] -> "88" should be "\bf{88}"
- [9] -> "Collaboration" instead of "collaboration"
- [11] should be "B. B. Back et al., PHOBOS Collaboration,
nucl-ex/0206012, submitted to Phys. Rev. C."
- [12] -> "Collaboration" instead of "collaboration"
- [13] -> "C60" should be "C \bf{60}"
- [15] and [16] -> "Collaboration" instead of "collaboration"
- [15] -> remove "and nucl-.." the paper is already published.
- [16] -> "nucl-ex/..." insetad of "Nucl-ex/..."
I hope this will help in finalizing the draft.
Best regards,
Fouad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fouad RAMI e-mail : fouad.rami@ires.in2p3.fr
IReS phone : 33.(0)3.88.10.62.00
23,rue du Loess : 33.(0)3.88.10.64.55
B.P.28-BAT.20 (secretary's office)
67037 STRASBOURG CEDEX 2 fax : 33.(0)3.88.10.66.14
FRANCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 - 10:07:02 EDT