From: Dieter Rohrich (dieter@fi.uib.no)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 16:49:00 EDT
Hei Ian, On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Ian Bearden wrote: > I respond to your comments below. I also note (not to you, > specifically, but many of you) that many of the comments could have > been made quite some time ago. OK. Guilty. > On tirsdag, jul 1, 2003, at 17:24 Europe/Copenhagen, Dieter Rohrich > wrote: > > > > > 1) We have to change the title because it is misleading; it reads as > > if there is a suppression in d+Au. > Agree > > > > Proposal: > > "High pt suppression at different pseudorapidities in Au+Au collisions > > and > > its absence in d+Au at ...." > I am still trying to come up with a good title, but this ain't it (and > neither are 10 or 15 alternatives I can come up with) > Keep trying...we can do better. > > > > 2) Abstract: > > Remove the last two sentences "These measurements .... collisions. The > > lack .......collisions." > NO you obviously want to discuss this in detail: what are high pt particles? Do you mean pions (that's what we measure)? Then the abstract is wrong. It is the hard scattered parton that may suffer energy loss, but not the high-pt particle. But we don't know and we cannot tell from the data. The abstract should focus on our excellent data, not on dubious interpretations. > > > > We should stick to our data and should note make statements we cannot > > substantiate. > I think that our data substantiate these statements, at least at > midrapidity. > > > > 3) Page 1, Introduction: > > > > First sentence: replace "i.e." with "e.g.". > NO. i.e. is correct here. i.e. is the abbreviation of the Latin id > est, meaning that is. e.g. is the abbreviation of examplia gratia, > i.e. for example. Thank you for educating me. E.g. is exactly we mean. An "extremely hot high-density region exhibiting features characteristic for a quark deconfinement" is NOT a QGP. It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. You need thermalization in addition! So, a QGP is ONE example of a deconfined state. > > Remove the rest of the paragraph (from "The first ..." until "... > > indeed > > formed in Au+Au collisions at RHIC."). Continue with "In order to ...." > > > > We don't need this discussion, and it cannot stay like it is - e.g. > > who says e > 5 GeV/fm**3? reference? > As has been mentioned several times, and as you well know, this is just > the Bjorken estimate (and it is in fact a conservative estimate, Miklos > "QGP" Gyulassy says 30 GeV.) I think it is reasonable to have this in, > since it somehow makes it reasonable to even talk about the possibility > of QGP. I mean there are some who talk about QGP in systems where > epsilon< 1GeV/fm3... No. Remove the folklore, i.e. the rest of the first paragraph. All the discussion about energy densities, transparency, thermal and chemical equilibration is irrelevant for our data. And furthermore,it is not correct. > > > > Second paragraph: > > First sentence: remove "scattered" > Done in the version you should be (v. 4.1) responding to, though I will > agree that it is going a bit fast! > > Second+third sentences: Rephrase to > > "Such particles are associated with jet production from initial > > hard parton scatterings. These partons are predicted to suffer > > energy loss..... > > Last sentence: remove "process is referred to as" and "and" > > > Last sentence...done > > 4) page 2 > > Fig. 1: > > Figure: replace "N+N" with "p+pbar" > > > > 5) page 3 > > Fig. 3: > > Add "Au+Au" to the figure and mention the collision system in the > > caption. > > > > Mention in the next that N_bin is the average number of bin. coll. > > > > last paragraph: > > typo "pseudorapidity" > I do not understand what the typo is...what am I missing? > > I my version it reads "psuedo..." > > 3. paragraph: > > remove "directly" > appears to be correlated is not much of a statement. directly implies a proportionality or some other well defined function (at least to me) which is not there. > > > > 4. paragraph /summary: > > remove "In fact, the oberservation of a Cronin .... nuclei." > > We cannot make such a statement based on our data. > Why not? Because we cannot make such a statement in the summary without having discussed possible initial state effects in detail by comparing different scenarios to our data. With best wishes, Dieter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 11:37:39 EDT