Re: [Brahms-l] RE: meson paper draft

Hi Djam

I agree with Michael and JJ's comments on Bjorken and equation 1 and had a
few more. It would also be nice with a table or at least the y=0 values 
to compare with STAR and PHENIX.

** Shouldn't we mention transverse flow when we quote the <p_T> difference
between pi and K.

** Quote the rapidity range : over the whole rapidity range (-5.3 < y < 
5.3) 

** Add stat + syst instead of just the sum to the K/pi ratios because I
guess that the syst is the same so that the difference is really
significant!

** Add a few more comments on the syst errors (especiallyu since you use 
them for the Bjorken discussion).

** I think you should mention that the hydro calculation is for p+p (if I
remeber correctly) and instead of the cryptic "which are not in
complete..." say which is 5% larger than the width predicted by the Landau
hydrodymnamical model.

** Make a reference to our ratios paper when you discus a mu_b as a 
function of rapidity

** relatively well described by Gaussians, sounds not good, drop 
relatively.
 
I would also do the following :

1) A stronger intro. I think you should also mention transverse and
longitudinal flow! It reminds us of intial conditions and equation of
state which is important (both Bjorken and Landau).

2) Analysis part is very short. At least there could be abit more details
(and you could quote stopping PRL for the spectra analysis)  and add a
little bit about your PID and decay corrections. I think it's fine to
quote your Ph.D., but I think you should tell how you/EJK calculated the
decay corrections and give a rough estimate. Between bla and bla in thye
MRS and BLa and Bla in the FS.


It looks very nice and the plots are great!!!!

Cheers
   Peter

Djamel Ouerdane wrote:

> 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
> 
> 

-- 
:-) --------------------------- )-:
 Peter H L Christiansen
 pchristi@nbi.dk / (+45)40840492 
:-D --------------------------- \-:



_______________________________________________
Brahms-l mailing list
Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov
http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l