Re: [Brahms-l] meson paper

Hi,

I took careful note of all comments and here is what we (HEHI) think
is a good compromise:

-number in astract: if any, we would like to put the 4pi yields.
This is a totally new info at RHIC, while mid-rap yields are already
in the preprint server (STAR, PHENIX)

-chemical equilibrium from particle ratios: the statement in the paper
is in fact conservative enough. I don't say that it is a sufficient
condition but if equilibrium, ratios should be whatever they should be,
so to me it's a necessary condition but not sufficient.

-weak decay corrections: I haven't done that and I believe that if I am
to do it, this will delay the paper a great deal. On the other hand,
things are maybe not so bad, I remember a correspondence with Becattini,
Dieter and Jens Ivar and I swear I saw numbers :) so it means that someone
took a stab at it (Jens Ivar ?). If numbers exist, I'm willing to put
them in. I think the real issue is K0. Isospin conservation tells us that
we have N(K+) = N(K0) and N(K-) = N(K0bar). How many decay early enough to
pions that are seen by the spectrometers ? If someone can make a short
brag simulation, I would be infinitely grateful :)

-Figure 3: there has been extensive discussion on this and the majority 
wants
to keep it as is. I personally don't think it repeats fig2. I don't show 
a fit
on this figure but the Landau/Carruthers prediction. And it's nice to stress
our data :)

-Transparency vs stopping: the majority doesn't see a contradiction. As 
Flemming
points out, the energy loss is quite spread and not concentrated at mid-rap.
In fact, I think that a good deal of it is gathered in the fragmentation 
region
(y_proton ~ 4). The fact that we have dY ~ 2 and not 5 makes it clear 
that collisions are somehow transparent.

-Bjorken vs Landau: we believe that the present data do not supply a 
proof of
either way. As Peter points out, there is more at RHIC than a simple 
(and naive)
scenario, whether it is B. or L. But then, it is quite a surprise that
Carruthers's simple model for pp is doing a descent job. So I changed the
conclusion in this way: while we cannot rule out Bjorken, there is the 
surprising
agreement between Landau/carruthers and our data...

-Peter: data table -> it's not so bad, it shows without any doubt that 
all fits
work correctly, that the Gaussian is not the preferred one. About the 
parameters,
it's not true, all fits have 3 parameters :)



So, I'll post a new version soon, once the abstract (the 1st thing to be 
sent to the RHIC community) is worked out properly.

Thanks to all of you for comments and corrections.
Cheers!
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-l