First a amusing thought inspired by a comment from Chellis Webster's unabridged edition 1964 white paper an official government report on subject of less importance or less complete than that treated in a white book or in a blue book Of course this has also other meanings as of today, but it may be worthwhile to think that this is not a scientific paper as is, though is may involve into one. As you also know there will be a meeting to discuss the white-paper at a meeting next Monday June 14 at a meeting room at Danfords in Port Jefferson. The agenda for this meeting is not complete determined, but is about the following - each experiment will summarize their findings as outlined in the white paper based on a) their own results and b) what has been learned in regard to a new state of matter. Format ~ 30 minutes each, maybe more for STAR,PHENIX. Attendence will be spokespeople+ writting group + Tom Kirk,sam aransons for the afternoon leading the discussion NO theorists as had been proposed. - discussion on what kind of agreement is present, what additional understanding (theories, measurements,analysis, if at all) points are needed. -This is particular important because theorist and to some degree T.Kirk really wants exp to make an announcement that the beast that is call QGP has been identified. In general the experiments are much more careful, and this process should be driven by scientific consensus, not political (or semi-political desires) to full fill some management goals. - Discussion on what happens next: In particular a) should this lead to an announchement of (s)QGP? b) can or should the white paper be included into the RBRC (riken) final volume to be prepare on ~ July 15 c) should the present white papers , or a derived form be prepared for a joint review report, journal (scientific publication e.g phys rep, rev.modern phys) be prepared on a 2-3 month time-scale? d) should these white papers at some point be followed up by an (open) workshop attended by a larger group of exp. and theorist to assess the findings/ Some of us certainly have points of view on this, but it is important to get feedback from the collaboration as such, since we are not as fortunate to have scheduled a coll meeting very close to this 'event'. It is thus utterly important that you discuss this in your local group(s) and communicate either by e-mail or by persoanl contact with JJ or me the point of view to bring forward, and we will clearly have to bring forward a view that reflects the overall view of the collaboration,. not our personal views, but to do this input is neede. flemming ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flemming Videbaek Physics Department Brookhaven National Laboratory e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov phone: 631-344-4106 _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Wed Jun 9 20:26:52 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 20:27:12 EDT