Hi Steve, I guess the most appropriate ref. would be Landau and Lifschitz or another stat. meachanics textbook (thats the one I read n- when I read such things), but of course the details are never worked out. cheers JJ ____________________________________________________________ Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc. Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16. UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16. Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk. ____________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen J. Sanders" <ssanders@ku.edu> To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov> Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: Re: Comments on version 3.04: QUICK JOB for Claus !! > Dear Jens Jorgen, > Thanks for the clarification on the calculation! I was missing the > second term in the k-/k+ ratio. Is there a good reference for > this? Just based on the papers that we cite, I would have taken > the particle production to scale as > 1/exp[{E - mu_b B - mu_s S}/T], > with B and S being the baryon and > strangeness numbers for the resulting hadrons. > > Regards, > Steve > > on 7/7/02 5:36 AM, Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje at gardhoje@nbi.dk wrote: > > > Dear Steve, > > Thanks for your precise and relevant comments. They are now in version 3.05, > > which I will however not circulate until monday evening - to minimize > > confusion among the crowd. > > > > The Becattini curve has yet to find its way into figure 4. (CLAUS !?) > > > > I have gone through the calc. again and find no mistake in the relationship > > mu_s=1/4 . mu_q. > > > > pbar/p = exp( -2mu_b/T) = exp(-6mu_q/T) > > > > k-/k+ = exp( 2 mu_s/T) . exp( -2 mu_q/T) ; since K- has an anti-u and a s, > > and antiparticles contribute with opposite sign chem. pot. etc. > > > > This leads to the relation k-/k+= exp(2mu_s/T) . (pbar/p)**1/3 (1) > > > > We observe k-/k+ = (pbar/p)**1/4. > > > > equating k-/k+ above with the RH side leds to the quoted identity. > > > > Another approach would have been to fit the data to an expression like (1) > > and let mu_s and T vary. => CLAUS CAN YOU DO THAT?? > > > > Please let me know if we agree on the formalism. > > cheers > > JJ > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc. > > Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. > > Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16. > > UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16. > > Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Stephen J. Sanders" <ssanders@ku.edu> > > To: <brahms-l@bnl.gov> > > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 11:34 PM > > Subject: Comments on version 3.04 > > > > > >> Dear Jens Jorgen and Claus, > >> Overall the paper seems to tell an interesting story. Nice job. > >> Some comments: > >> > >> PRL required full postal addresses. For the US institutions, this means > > you > >> will need to > >> supply the states and postal zip codes. > >> > >> Abstract: > >> "ratios at midrapidity" (typo in draft) > >> "from mu_b=120 MeV at forward rapidity to mu_b ~25MeV at mid-rapidity" > >> (otherwise the reader will > >> assume a parallel structure to the previous sentence where one > >> goes FROM midrapidity TO > >> forward rapidity) > >> > >> Paragraph 1. > >> "...considerable transparency is expected for Au+Au collisions, even > > for > >> central events." > >> (current sentence is poorly formed and confusing) > >> "...near midrapidity and pbar/p and K-/K+ particle number ratios with > >> values near unity." > >> (current sentence poorly formed...) > >> "...described above, reminiscent..." (remove "a" before reminiscent) > >> > >> Paragraph 3. > >> "...ratios are approaching unity, with values of 0.75+-0.04(pbar/p), > >> 0.95+-0.05(K-/K+), and > >> 1.01+-0.04(pi-/pi+), respectively." > >> (What does "over 0.95+-0.05" mean?!!!! Is this a claim that we don't > >> believe the quoted uncertainty? > >> > >> Paragraph 5. > >> "p=5.5 and 8GeV/c, respectively." (add comma) > >> > >> Paragraph 6. > >> "The primary event trigger was based on two Zero Degree Calorimeters > >> (ZDCs) located +/-18m > >> from the nominal IP [12]. The reaction centrality was determined > > using > >> a plastic > >> scintillator tile array surrounding the intersection region[7,8,12]. > >> Beam-Beam Counters (BBCs), > >> consisting of two arrays of Cherenkov radiators positions +-2.15 m > > from > >> the IP, measured charged > >> hadrons in the pseudorapidity range 3.0<|eta|<3.8. For the 25% most > >> central collisions, the BBCs > >> allow collision vertex determination with a resolution of sig_z~0.65 > > cm > >> and supply the start time > >> for the time-of-flight measurement with sig_t<~30 ps." > >> (Otherwise ZDC is used in Paragraphs 8, but never defined.) > >> > >> Paragraph 8. > >> "...expected \beta^{-1} vs. momentum behavior for..." (add behavior) > >> "...BBC-ZDC..." (We used BBC in the multiplicity papers and it > > would > >> be nice to be consistent...) > >> > >> Paragraph 9. > >> "In the MRS the background contribution to the proton yields, > > arising > >> mainly..." (Otherwise, > >> I'm not sure what is meant by "from protons"...) > >> > >> Paragraph 11. > >> "{\it etc.}" (add period to indicate abbreviation of "et cetera") > >> > >> Paragraph 12. > >> "Systematic uncertainties are estimated as 2% in the case of pions > > and > >> kaons and as 4% in the case > >> of protons." (Both instances of "to" should be changed to "as".) > >> > >> "...invariant plateau around midrapidity as proposed by Bjorken." > > (add > >> "as") > >> > >> Paragraph 14. > >> (Here I am suggesting a rewording that would have made this > > discussion > >> clearer to me after reading > >> the EARLIER Braun-Munzinger papers, which we don't cite. However, I > >> am also not > >> getting your expression of mu_s=1/4 mu_q, so I may be missing > >> something else....(I find > >> mu_s = mu_b/4 rather than mu_q/4)) > >> > >> " ...expressed by a power low K-/K+=(pbar/p)^{1/4}. The exponent > > gives > >> the scaling factor between > >> the strange and baryon chemical potentials. For a vanishing > >> strange-quark chemical > >> potential \mu_{qs}, this > >> exponent is expected to have a value of 1/3 (where mu_{qs}=\mu_B/3 - > >> \mu_S). The present > >> result sugests \mu_S = \mu_B / 4." > >> > >> Figure Caption 4. > >> Becattini results stated in caption is not shown (on my figure...) > >> > >> Regards, > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 12:48:16 EDT