Hi, Zhongbao, I have a couple of general comments and a few minor comments/suggestions. According to the published results by us and PHOBOS, R(eta=0) ~ R(eta=2.2), where dN/deta in AuAu for central (0-10% BRAHMS or 0-6% PHOBOS) R = ------------------------------------------------------- dN/deta from UA5 In Fig. 2, RAuAu(y=0) is ~50% bigger than RAuAu(eta=2.2) at pt~0.5 GeV/c, near (slightly higher than) <pt> for pions. Taking into account quoted systematic errors, the difference is still significant. I don't think the ratio of [pi-/charged hadron] changes significantly between eta=0 and 2.2 for the central AuAu and pp (or pbar-p). If some Jacobian effect is (partly) responsible for this, we should try to separate trivial kinematics from dynamics. The physics conclusion/punch line seems a bit weak to me. "An even stronger pi- suppression at forward rapidity suggests that the hot dense partonic medium might also exist in the forward rapidity region..." We probably need to discuss hydro and some other aspects. Please see my presentation at the mini-coll. meeting three weeks ago. http://www.sdcc.bnl.gov/brahms/private/meetings/June2005/index.html Some (random) minor corrections/comments: Page2: "RAA = 1 at pt > 2 GeV/c" It's presumptuous. Soft/Hard boundary should be rather higher. Eq. 1 Nuclear modification factor: Why don't we say sigma_pp not sigma_NN? That's what we do. In principle, they are not the same. We also don't "correct for" or discuss isospin effect. It's also mentioned as NN in the abstract Page 2: The sentence "By taking the ratio..." is too long. Page 2: "So a reference spectrum shown...": a bit colloquial Page 3: Fig1: "error bars are statistic only"-> "error bars are statistical only". No description on the curves. JH _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Fri Jul 1 12:07:20 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 12:07:32 EDT