From: Ian Bearden (bearden@nbi.dk)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 09:14:33 EDT
Hi Bjørn, Thanks for the comments. I do not wish to try to rewrite the discussion of the d+Au at this late stage. We will have ample opportunity for this when we publish the pseudorapidity dependence in d+Au (and maybe even p+p?). If we really do not believe these data, then let us by all means stop now. However, I believe that what we have done is reasonable. On tirsdag, jul 1, 2003, at 14:26 Europe/Copenhagen, Bjorn H Samset wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Ian Bearden wrote: > >> Dear Collaborators: >> Please find the latest draft attached as .ps and .pdf. > > Hi all - a few comments to the (overall very good) high-pt draft from > me > (maybe overlapping with those from SS, ZY etc. from this morning or > earlier comments that I just didn't read well enough...). > > Before I start, though, just a brief report. I've been trying quite > hard > to produce a reference spectrum from p+p at eta=0, just so we could say > that we're consistent with ourselves as well as STAR. I'm _almost_ > there, > but there's an issue with the higher pt region (above 1.5) where we > seen > to pick up a lot of particles. This may be related to Dieters comments > about the vertex resolution, since pt is not all that well determined > when > theta is uncertain (yes, I read Ians reply...) Anyway, have a look > here to > see the current status: > http://www.fys.uio.no/~bjornhs/brahms/pp/HpHm_eta=0.gif > This is just one of the 4 settings I have (350B) - they all show the > same > trend (within errors), but I have a problem combining them so I'm only > showing one. (It's just a coding bug, but time just ran out on me...) > Let > me know if anyone is interested in the details. > > So for the comments: > > * In the absract: "The restulting ratios (nuclear modification > factors)..." This sounds a bit strange in a concise abstract - why not > just "The nuclear modification factors for central..." since > everything is > explained clearly in the text. Also, I find the last sentence very > strogly > worded, especially since what we say in the paper is that "such an > explanation appears improbable." (But I believe this has been discussed > before...) > > * 2nd paragraph: "original medium" -> "produced medium"? original is a > bit > unclear > I like produced. It is in. > * 3rd paragraph: Is the formula for eta necesseary? There are lots of > other variables that we don't define. > the formula stays. transverse momentum should be intuitive for physicists who read PRL, while eta is probably not. > * 3rd paragraph: "We have also measured similar spectra (for minimum > bias > collisions) for the reaction d+Au" -> "We have also measured similar > spectra for minimum bias d+Au reactions at..." (I think parantheses > look > odd in such sentences...) One could (and if fact, more than one has...) argued that this means the spectra are not similar. I (being contrary) like to have remarks (sometimes even important ones) parenthetically. > > * 4th paragraph: "in the range" -> "in the ranges" OK > > * 4th paragraph: \approx 25\% -> \sim 25\% ? > no > * 4th paragraph: Should we ref. the value we use for the d+Au cross > section? > evidently > * 4th paragraph: "The IP position is det." -> "The IP position was det" > (keep same tense in whole paragraph). Same thing below: "vertex > measurement by the INEL counters _had_ a resolution" I disagree here. The counters have a resolution. The tense of finding the position is nearly irrelevant since I could do the same thing now... > * Also here, I really agree with Dieter that we should say more about > the > d+Au vertex resolution. We will get questions about how we can calc. > pt if > we don't know the vertex better than this - see also my pp spectrum > above. > I've done all the "normal" cuts like y-position etc., so it seems to me > that we still get a significant contribution from secondaries or > particles > pushed to higher pt. Maybe just say that the effect of this > uncertainty is > abs. in the syst. unc.? What is the effect? How large is it? What is the contribution of secondaries at high pt? > > * 5th paragraph: degrees -> $^{o}$ or something - just as clear, saves > space. Also, "displayed" can be removed and the two lines then > beginning > with "the spectra" can be contracted. OK to degrees. I'll also change this so there is only one sentence. > > * ...agree with Steve on the "and normalized..."-comment... Already done > > * 6th paragraph: The first sentence is a monster, but I'm not sure how > to > shorten it... The main problem is that the important part, i.e. "and > construct the ratio.", comes way at the end and so is easily missed. > We must assume a certain attention span, I think. I just tried to read it out loud, and can get through the sentence (without reading the parenthetical remarks) with only one breath. Thus the sentence is not too long. And I can't find a better alternative. > * 7th paragraph: Say where we get the Nbin values from? E.g. ", > respectively, as calculated from HIJING/Glauber/...") > See how you like the next version... > * Some unneeded spaces around refs. 16-18. > I think I have gotten rid of all the unneeded spaces... > * 8th paragraph, end: 'wherefore' is a slightly strange word. Use the > shorter (but more boring) 'so'? Strange, yet wonderful. I looked this word up, and it is used correctly. Thereupon, I countenance retention of this verbiage. > > * 9th paragraph: (nearly) -> close-to? 91%? Or just nearly with no > paranthesis? We are debating...should we just call the 91% minimum bias....or do you just not like parentheses? :-) > > * Ref 11: Use nucl-ex/ for both refs done > > * Fig. 1 is very small, while figs 3 and 4 could be reduced. > No they cannot be reduced. Fig 3 is, to my mind the only real contribution we can make to the field, and I think it would be a disaster to make it smaller. > * Ref. the p+p reference data in the caption of fig. 1? > What? Is it not enough to do this in the text? Anyway, the line shown is not directly from UA1, it is rather severely massaged. > * Just a thought - could fig. 3 be made into a row 4 of fig. 2? That > would > save space and make for easier comparison of the figures? (Maybe this > was > already discussed...) Again, I think that fig 3 is extremely important as it shows, without relying on any corrections, that the suppression remains at 2.2. I think the only possible discussion here can be the extent to which we want to emphasize the drop at high pt. > > ...and just for the record: Producing this paper has been a very good > effort by those involved, esp. Claus. Thanks for doing all that work > :-) > > -- > Bjorn H. Samset Phone: 22856465/92051998 > PhD student, heavy ion physics Adr: Schouterrassen 6 > Inst. of Physics, University of Oslo 0573 Oslo > \|/ > ----------------------------> -*- <----------------------------- > /|\ > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 09:15:31 EDT
