Dear Jens Jorgen, since none of my major comments have been taken into account in the new version, I have to repeat them again and I am serious about them. The following comments are not cosmetical. The main message of our paper is fig. 3, so we should make sure that the data points are solid and errors are understood instead of getting lost in cracker-barrel philosophy about equilibrium and plateaus. I do not agree with you that the current version can be published, because some statements we make are ridiculous and only show our ignorance. 1. Nuclear transparencey and Bjorken scenario: Nuclear transparency will be discussed in length in our stopping paper (and that's the appropriate place to do it), and plateaus we have discussed in our dn/deta publications. This paper is about particle ratios as a function of rapidity, which are an input to statistical models of particle production/hadronization and an essential constraint on dynamical models and whether the ratios are sensitive to the partonic phase. The Bjorken scenario can be mentioned in the text, but NOT in the abstract and NOT in the summary because it is irrelevant. 2. Statistical models and their thermal interpretation: We are violating all basic assumptions of statistical models when plotting thermal predictions on top of fig.4, i.e. we are treating the ratios at different rapidities as completely independent systems. OK, we can do this and we should, but drawing conclusions like u_s = 1/4 x u_q is ridiculous. And the statements about chemical (and even local) equilibrium show that we have missed the scientific discussion about equilibration vs dynamics during the last 3 years. The conclusion I would draw from Fig.4 (the fact that statistical models predict the observed ratios) is that a thermal interpretation of these models is questionable - in contrast to the equilibrium idea. Here the comments in detail: Abstract second sentence: remove "and consistent with significant significant nuclear transparency" third sentence: remove "locally equilibrated sources and a" If we use statistical models AND interprete the parameters as T and mu_b, we implicitely assume chemical equilibrium. One can NOT deduce chemical equilibrium from the fact that statistical models describe the measured ratios. Omit this sentence. Page 1: 4. para.: insert "net" into "This behaviour supports ..... of a nearly NET baryon-free zone at ...." Page 4: first column, 1. para., last s.: remove "This is consistent with the onset of the boost invariant plateau around midrapidity proposed by Bjorken." 1. col., 2. para., first s.: The statement "The measured set of particle ratios as a function of rapidity also lends itself to an analysis in terms of a model ..." Wrong. Midrapidity ratios or 4pi ratios are input to thermal models. These models have no concept about rapidity. Remove "as a function of rapidity". Fig.4: replace "shows the relation K-/K+ = (pbar/p)**(1/4)" with "shows a fit to the relation K-/K+ = (pbar/p)**alpha; alpha = 0.24". We have no physics argument for the (1/4) relation. second column, second para.: replace "can be expressed by a power law ..." with "can be fitted to a power law K-/K+ = (pbar/p)**alpha; alpha = 0.24" See comment above. A fit to a (1/4) power law without a physics motivation is useless. Remove "Comparison if the two relations gives u_s = 1/4 x u_q". Page 5 1. para., 1. s.: This statement is wrong: "Within the framework of the statistcal model, Fig. 4 suggests, that the particle source corresponding to the different rapidity regions sampled in our experiments are all in local chemical equilibrium with strangeness conservation" No. By plotting the statistical model on top of our data and by chosing a thermal interpretation of the parameters we assume the above. Rephrase the sentence. Again, from the fact that statistical models describe the measured ratios, one can NOT deduce chemical equilibrium. second para.: remove "suggesting the existence of a boost invariant midrapidity plateau dominated by particle production from the color field." We have no evidence for e.g. boost invariance, and we do not measure particle ratios to discover/prove/disprove boost invariant plateaus.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 08 2002 - 04:33:09 EDT