Re: [Brahms-l] QM abstract

Dear Michael, Ramiro and other BRAHMSians!

Sorry for late answer but I was sitting in IR trying to make order
among immense number of DC cables;).
I also shared the same idea as Ramiro.
I am not as good a theoretician as you are, in fact I am close to not
being one at all, but that was the picture that was quite consistent to me.
The smaller rapidity loss than expected tells me that the original nuclei
were not stopped as expected from a linear extrapolation of lower energy
data,
and thus that the collision is somewhat transparent (as in Bjorken
approach).
On the other hand the pion rapidity density distribution is good described
in the Landau picture.
Thank you for comments, and Ramiro for quick defense.
I will be happy to get even more comments.

Yours, radek

On 10/30/07, Ramiro Debbe <debbe_at_rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> What I remember is that for Landau (low energy) the two projectiles
> stop. The system they form expands from a source at y=0 and the mass
> term in the expansion (width of rapidity distribution?) is the mass of
> protons!!  I remember Chelis  made that remark long time ago. This
> could be a deep semantic can of worms.
> Ramiro
> On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Michael Murray wrote:
>
> > But that is what Landau assumes too. The beam fragments cross and take
> > any angular momentum produced in the collision with them. They leave
> > behind a hot dense medium which expands adiabatically under some
> > equation of state.
> > Michael
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Ramiro Debbe wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Michael,
> >> I understand that small net-proton at y=0 would imply that both
> >> projectiles have crossed each other as per Bjorken model.
> >> Ramiro
> >> On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Michael Murray wrote:
> >>
> >>>      Dear Radek,
> >>>                how do our net proton yields and saturation of
> >>> rapidity loss support the Bjorken picture of heavy ion collisions?
> >>> Also the Landau picture was developed for pp collisions. Kris do we
> >>> have pion rapidity distribution for pp collisions?
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 30, 2007, at 6:43 AM, Radoslaw Karabowicz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear Collaborators!
> >>>>
> >>>> Attached please find a new version of my abstract for QM08.
> >>>> Comments are welcomed, and in fact awaited for.
> >>>>
> >>>> Greetings, Radek
> >>>> <rk_qm2008_abstract.pdf>
> >>>> <rk_qm2008_abstract.ps>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Brahms-l mailing list
> >>>> Brahms-l_at_lists.bnl.gov
> >>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Brahms-l mailing list
> >>> Brahms-l_at_lists.bnl.gov
> >>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l
> >>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Brahms-l mailing list
Brahms-l_at_lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l