From: Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje (gardhoje@nbi.dk)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 12:37:05 EDT
Dear Steve Indeed you touch on a central issue (excuse the pun). We will take a look at the shape of the RAA for diff. centrality cuts. As we discussed in Krakow, however, some felt that this is not very worthwhile, although I hold a somewhat different opinion. Much better is of course to be able to plot the RAA for such cuts. This requires proper Ncoll numbers. If the Si mult. dist is not understood, perhaps such cuts could be made on the BB and correspondingly simulated in HIJING+BRAG. Perhaps it would be most expedient to try to produce the numbers from the simulations using various cuts on the Si and BB, so that they are available if we decide to use them. Item 1. should at least give us confidence in what we are doing. We would also be very happy for fisrt thoughts on the paper draft and not least on more fancy figures. Claus is now back. We hope that a reanalysis of the y=2 data will be available sometime tomorrow. Peter has redone the DST's etc. with updated D1 and D2 info + geom. 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: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:42 PM Subject: Re: High pt paper > Hi, > In reading through the draft I'm struck by how unfortunate it is that > we don't have > centrality selection for the dAu. There would seem to be two > "features" of the reaction > that we are unable to address: > 1.) Does the shape of the nuclear modification function change with > centrality, as seen > with the Au+Au data, > 2.) Does the amplitude of the hard scattering region of the nuclear > modification function change > with centrality, as seen dramatically by Phenix, but seemingly less so > by Phobos and > Star. > > We can't answer the second without real centrality selection and an > analysis of > Ncol. However, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to address 1.) by > adding a > central/peripheral ratio vs Pt. I could imagine a comparison on the > 50% highest > tile multiplicity with the 50% lowest. > > Just a thought... Question 2.) is probably much more interesting, > but is looking increasingly > unlikely to be ready by the time we need to submit.... > > ...steve > > > > >> > >> Dear Collaborators, > >> > >> I've updated the high pt paper draft. The changes are mainly of > >> the language (thanks to J. Natowitz). I've added a bit and re-arranged > >> the analysis and hardware section. Don't focus too much on the text > >> describing the figures since this will be re-writtin when we have the > >> final figures. > >> > >> The new draft is here: > >> > >> www.nbi.dk/~ekman/highpt/high-pt26.ps > >> www.nbi.dk/~ekman/highpt/high-pt26.pdf > >> www.nbi.dk/~ekman/highpt/high-pt26.tex > >> > >> Claus > >> > >> > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 12:43:12 EDT