This website is no longer maintained. Its content may be obsolete. Please visit http://home.cern/ for current CERN information.
Dear Peter and Berndt, Thanks a lot for your summary of Chamonix. You did indeed a great job and I am grateful to you for having produced a paper that should very useful for the external world (and for us...). Of course, it is not an easy task to give a general overview of the field while some ideas are not always reconciable. And I am afraid to add more entropy with the following remarks: Because of lack of time, the following question has not been seriously addressed in Chamonix: 1) As U. Heinz says, there is a growing amount of data which tells that hadron production in light systems is of collective nature, even in central S-S, let say above N(participants)= about 30 or above roughly 1.5 GeV/fm**3 in terms of energy density. 2) There is also growing evidence that there is a sudden change in the pattern of J/psi suppression above N(part.)=120 (roughly 2.8 GeV/fm**3) which is commonly interpreted in terms of chi suppression. But in any case, if this change is sudden, it cannot be interpreted in terms of conventional explanations. 3) Finally, there is evidence that there is a change in the suppression pattern of psiprime above N(part.)= 35-40 both in S-U and Pb-Pb. This change is not sudden and is currently interpreted in terms of comovers effect. It is clear that for the moment, we cannot reconcile point 1 with points 2 and 3. Because of large corona effects in central S-S, it is difficult to understand why strangeness enhancement is similar in central S-S and Pb-Pb unless the critical energy density for deconfinement is much lower. But then, psip should be strongly suppressed even in the most peripheral collisions of S-U. Even if including the collision dynamics (I completely agree that there is a lack of a complete self consistent calculation where all the quoted effects are involved), it is difficult to imagine that the QGP will have no influence on the psip. And it is not reasonable to conclude from the discrepancy between points 1 and 2,3 that the "anomalous" J/psi (chi) suppression has "no direct relation" with the deconfinement threshold and thus charmonium suppression is not relevant to give evidence for QGP formation. Even if the anomalous j/psi suppression was related to a time effect allowing "subthreshold collisions with secondary hadrons", it should be continuous and not "step-like". In order to understand what happens and to find a general consensus (...?), it is clear that we need both AA=(100)**2. The text must thus leave the subject open. The sentence concerning the two consecutive thresholds could be removed as it has no strong incidence on the present summary but the previous sentence should be kept with some light and shade. A proposition: middle of the section: after "....J/psi suppression differs strongly from that observed in lighter systems" it could be added "and seems to show a change in the slope of the suppression pattern for mid central collisions" last sentence: "Such a behaviour cannot be explained in the frame of conventional models but is expected if...". other secondary comments: - section 2: the studied systems are S+Au and Pb+Au if I am not mistaking. - It could be more educative to follow the order of sections you suggest in your introductory sentence: section 1: j/psi suppression section 2: strangeness enhancement section 3: low-mass lepton pairs section 4 (if any but it is not a bad idea): flow aspects section 5: hadron thermometry which gives a more general discussion These remarks are of course my personal assessements and are in fact more connected with Ulie'mail. Thanks a lot again for the nice work you have done. Best regards, Claudie