Hi Michael, I'm switching to a night shift mode so it won't be convenient for you to call me :) > well done. The paper is much more polished. In my first ever > talk I had graphs of Et spectra from SPb ovs Fritioff and the Dual > Parton Model. The DPM was clearly better but to my horrow Bo Anderson > the author of Fritioff was in the front row. I desperately tried to > fuddge the descrepancy and said that Fritoff was "not too bad". > Anderson's talk was next. The first thing he said was "Fritoff dosen't > work", he then chastised me for being so polite and said that the only > way to learn something was to point out when models failed. Why are we > so polite to Bjorken scaling? I can accept that if may work > approximately for +- 1 unit but can we seriously show Fig 3 and say > "Unfortunately, a non negligible fraction of our systematic error > depends on $y$. Therefore, the present data cannot bring a definitive > conclusion regarding the Bjorken picture. " > I understand your point Michael. I'm not being polite, I'm being honest. When I was analyzing the data, I first had a finer binning for the pt spectra. This was fine at mid-rap but there was less stat. in the FS so I increased the bin width so that all my spectra had the same (easier to handle). I'm saying that because a finer binning in the MRS pt spectra did lead to "boost-invariant" yields over 0.8 unit of rapidity. So, it tells me our systematic error does not allow us to kick out Bjorken. Now, if I was fast on this point, it's because to me, it's not the main point. Bjorken built up a scenario without quantifying much what the boost-invariant rapidity range would be (if you read the paper, it's a bit vague). On the other hand, there are simple and clear predictions from the Landau hydro, and it requires looking at the whole rapidity range instead of focusing on y = 0 +- 1. I think, whether Landau works or not, it is more interesting to discuss since it involves ALL our pion data. > I find that the abstract also too limited. I know, I cut it down because I checked on the PRL web-site that an abstract for a letter should not contain more than 600 characters, spaces included. So I thought, along with Dieter, that giving the main results was probably a way to have it formatted right. > Our data clearly favor some Landau like hydrodynamics. Also the rapidity > dependence of particle ratios seems analagous to the sqrt(s) dependence, > suggesting a strong dependence on mu_b. I It's a statement somewhere in the paper. Do you disagree ? :) > > I think Eqn 1 is superfluous. Why not just say gaussian. I think it is > great to submit the data with the paper but could you squeeze in a table > of intergrated yields? If some text could be cut down, I can try. > I have a small number of comments on the language. I can put them in the > latex file but I would prefer to talk with you on the phone. Michael please, use the tex file and send it back to me. Djam -- Djamel Ouerdane ------------------------------------------o | Niels Bohr Institute | Home: | | Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Ø | Jagtvej 141 2D, | | Fax: +45 35 32 50 16 | DK-2200 Copenhagen N | | Tel: +45 35 32 52 69 | +45 35 86 19 74 | | http://www.nbi.dk/~ouerdane | | ouerdane@nbi.dk | o---------------------------------------------------------o _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Tue Feb 17 13:38:12 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 17 2004 - 13:38:36 EST