This website is no longer maintained. Its content may be obsolete. Please visit http://home.cern/ for current CERN information.
Hi everybody, let me allso add my comments concerning the draft by Berndt and Peter. General remark: Except for the first paragraph I found this draft a very carefully formulated document. I read to read it twice to catch most of the disclaimers! As already mentioned by others, elliptic flow should be added. Also the possibility and importance of meassuring open charm should be stressed in the final section. 1) First paragraph. These are many "very optimistic" statements which do not really find support in the subsequent paragraphs. I certainly would find it rather difficult to defend some of these statements to any of our colleagues outside of heavy ion physics. In particular, I must have missed what the experimental "breakthroughs" are supposed to be. If there are any, the subsequent text should clearly spell them out (assuming that most of us can agree with them). 2) J/Psi suppression: Most of what I have to say to this subject has already been stated by other people. Certainly, it is hard to postulate a threshold behaviour based on what we saw at Charmonix (min. bias data). The wording of this paragraph takes this into account in a very elegant way. I would, however, be a little more cautious concerning the expectation of a threshold behaviour. The sentence "Such a behaviour is expected if the QCD transition occurs within the covered E_T range" could haunt us in the future. I am not sure if this statement is unambiguously established. Quite to the contrary, even in an ideal QGP at a Temperature below the dissociation temperature of the J/Psi thermal gluons will be efficient to destroy the J/Psi. And this is certainly a smooth effect, which depends on the lifetime of the QGP phase and on the thermal distribution. Furthermore, Satz and Nardi recently used a percolation description of overlapping strings in order to generate a threshold effect. While this is an original idea, it is certainly not derived from QCD. In conclusion, I would be very careful about the above statement. It may haunt us in the future, in the sense that any "real" claim that we have discovered the QGP will be ignored by the outside world, because we have not been able to establish the "predicted" threshold behaviour. 3) Low mass dileptons: This paragraph is very carefully formulated and it avoids to mention the rather uncertain experimental situation. In view of the purpose of this document, this might be the right approach. The discussion about the (non)relation between changing vector meson masses and chiral restoration has been pointed out in the literature many times. I am not sure if the present document is the right place to reiterate that again. Let me add a few remarks concerning the low mass dileptons, although I feel this discussion should be delegated to a topical workshop. First of all let's not forget, that the experimental situation is not yet clear. On the one hand there is the problem with the background. While arguments have been given that the observed signal is not just a misinterpretation of the background I am not sure if all doubts have been erased. The argument concerning the shape really hangs only on one single data point, that at the rho/omega mass. Given the differences between the 95 and 96 data sets (and the S+Au for that matter), I think it is too early to conclude anything before we see the new data with the high mass resolution. In this sense NA45 is on the right track. Also, the number of omega-mesons produced in these collisions is not very well constrained by other data. Reducing the number of omegas in the cocktail affects the shape of the enhancement towards that of pion annihilation. Again, this will (hopefully) be resolved with the new NA45 setup. Let me next address the issue of the contribution from quark - antiquark annihilation. This point has been raised by J. Wambach in is presentation and also by quite a few people during the coffee breaks. Shuryaks remarks also point in this direction. First of all: There have been numerous calculations which have taken this channnel into account. Most recently, there was the very systematic study of Sollfrank et al (nucl-th/9607029). All these calculations conclude that the contribution of free quarks is sub-leading (about a factor of 20 below the data in the aforementioned reference). Second: Let us assume for the moment that the scenario put forward in the "hadron thermometry" section is correct, namely that chemical freeze out happens at a considerably higher temperature that thermal freeze out. This of course tells us that the hadrons (in particular the pions) still reinteract after they are being formed. Consequently there HAS to be pion annihilation! What the shape of this is, is still under debate, but the integrated yield in most calculations is compatible with the enhancement reported from the '96 data. Finally let me add a comment to J. Wambachs remarks. Measuring the vector-correlator is important, no doubt. But let me emphasise that dilepton pairs carry only HALF the signal for chiral restoration. The other half is the axial correlator, which is probably very hard to get to in experiment. 4) Hadron thermometry. From the work of Beccatini we know that the relative ratio between the particle abundances are essentially driven by phase space dominance in the reaction. This is of course not what we would call chemical equilibrium, namely the vanishing of the Boltzmann collision integrals. Therefore, the "temperature" extracted from the chemical analysis is not necessarily the temperature one would put on the QCD phase diagram. In order to identify these temperatures the existence of thermal equilibrium needs to be established. Maybe event-by event physics will help. I agree with R. Stock that the issue of the J/Psi transverse momentum slope should go in section one. Volker Koch