From: Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje (gardhoje@nbi.dk)
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 08:00:00 EDT
Dear Flemming et al. A few first quick comments to the document(RBUP). 1) I disagree with the strong statement about Gaussian meson rap. dist. Looking at Djamels data fits with a Wood Saxon type functional is just as good. In fact the chi-squaresd is probably better. At the same time the avergage pt and the appa. T seem to be flat at |y|<1.5. I would not make a strong conclusive statement, but point out that this is what we would like to understand better. I don't think we are at the end of that story. 2) I feel quite strongly that our main thrust in the Au+Au runs should be to focus on the new interesting signals, e.g high pt at various rapidities, and our unique possibility to study this with identiffies particles. Related issues are the CGC search. Consequently we need long Au+Au runs at max energy for these low cross section items. Most of the other physics can be done in a short time if we have high luminosity. Not to say that they should not be done, primarily the highest rapidities, but they should not shape the program. 3) I disagree with the priority given to lighter ion species over lower energy. I think it is of paramount importance to establish the systematics of high pt. suppression. sqrt(s)=56 or better 63 is not a bad choice. I fail to fully appreciate the significance of smaller systems as opposed to more peripheral Au+Au collisions. There may be some small second order differences, but I personally doubt that there is any major physics issue hidden there. I propose that our request for RUN IV is AU+AU max energy and Au+Au at lower energy for (1/4?) of the time IF the preceeding full energy run has proceeded well with adequate integrated lum. The request for RUN V should include studies of p+p for the reference for high pt studies at fwd. rap, and of the pol p+p at fwd rap. I suggest that we also include some Au+Au (possibly one could put in the lighter ion runs there) Well, thats my two pennys worth. Opinions? cheers JJ PS: it struck me that RBUP could also be Beam Use RHIC Proposal...... ____________________________________________________________ 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: Flemming Videbaek To: brahms-l@bnl.gov Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 10:46 PM Subject: Beam Use Proposal Dear Colleague, Based on the outline and a fisrt go around between a couple of people in particular the BNL group , Steve Sanders and Michael a (still rough) draft for the beam use proposl has been written. A fair number of details in terms of luminosity estimates has still to be worked out in details, and will be done. Input on the document and strategy, as outlined both here and in the earlier shorted document is appreciated. The deadline is next Sunday (8/31) but I intend to have it complete by Friday if at all possible. regards Flemming ------------------------------------------------------ Flemming Videbaek Physics Department Brookhaven National Laboratory tlf: 631-344-4106 fax 631-344-1334 e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 08:10:13 EDT