Folks- I've given a bunch of text suggestions to Flemming because they are cumbersome to send out, but I would like to make two further suggestions to the Collaboration. 1)On page 4 (top) where we discuss the "potential experimental signatures", I propose we give "real" experimental signatures together with the theoretical quantities they are taken to represent. For example we say "large energy density" but the measurement is (maybe) energy loss or dN/dY, entropy growth=total multiplicty, thermodynameic variables= differential spectra, yields, ratios, etc. We could then readily identify these measured quantities to the experimental paragraphs that follow. 2)For the conclusions perhaps we could note that prior to the experimental results many of the accepted predictions were flawed: the multiplicity was expected to be larger, the elliptic flow negligible, the (HBT)source size larger, etc. Thus the theoretical considerations have lagged the experimental measurements. The more recent theory is based on new mesurements and not predictive of them. We must await new experimental results that verify these new predictions in order to become comfortable with the new model. As Michael says this is not the QGP we were brought up on. ========================================= Chellis Chasman Physics Department Bldg 510D Brookhaven National Lab Upton, NY 11973 Tel: 631-344-3990 Fax: 631-344-1334 E-mail: chasman@bnl.gov _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Thu Jun 3 10:03:23 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 10:03:46 EDT