Hi,

Thanks for the chapter 5.

Enclosed few comments for the version on Mars 25th https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/ReteQuarkonii/SWGReviewCoordiatnion

Regards, Ginés

#2458 remove subsection "5.1 Introduction"

Ok

#2459 "Quarkonia ( ..."

Ok

#2465-66 My understanding was that J/psi should melt at the same temperature as the upsilon(2S).

Indeed the JPsi should melt at the Y(2S) temperature, however I think we can keep the text as it is. As it is written now, we consider separately the bottomonium and charmonium families: Y(2S) and Y(3S) temperatures have to be compared to the Y(1S) one, while the Psi(2S) temperature to the JPsi one.

#2473 it is matter of taste but instead of "in high-sqrt(S)" it is more precise "in LHC collisions"

We now write "at high energies (as the LHC ones)"...

#2475 "collision history" ==> "collisions evolution"

Ok

#2480 "in section 3"

Ok

#2494-99 refer to RAA definition in section 3

Ok

#2507-12 refer to v2 definition in section 4

Ok

#2521-22 "higher" and "larger"

Ok

#2536-39 I think one should mention the pT cut on the charmonium measurements by ATLAS and CMS.

???

TD: I don't think it's necessary. We are already saying that they cover different regions and we have a figure and a table that include the precise information.

#2546 "This section..."

Ok

#2550 remove "for recombination"

Ok

#2568 mas units GeV/c2

Ok

Table 15, can a reference be added to the caption?

This has been asked several times already...What can we quote?

How about one of Helmut's papers? I'll check later today.

#2572 "In a QGP"

Ok

#2620 I think it is worth to mention that the measurement of the feed-down from higher resonance is a crucial measurement. Namely, the recent measurements of the LHCb have modified the interpretation of the upsilon data at LHC.

To be done

TD: This is a comment similar to the one from Raphael in the Y section. In either case, this general introduction to sequential melting is not the place to discuss "modifications to the interpretation of data..." if at all that's to come later. Furthermore, we don't mention explicit values of feed down fractions for the Y.

#2632 I am a little bit confused here. In this sentence you refer to CNM, ans the produced hadron (comovers) is mentioned. I do not think the comover is a CNM, right?

??

#2638 "here" ==> Fig 76

Ok

#2638-52 I have the impression these lines can be reduced to one single sentence, given the proper references to section 1 and 3.

??

#2660 "here" ==> be more precise, please.

??

figure 76, please quote the energy and system in the caption.

Ok

#2711 "in a QGP"

Ok

#2713 section ?

ok

#2714 move [646] at the end of the sentence.

Ok

#2723-24 I think "low" and "high" are not precise. The important quantity is the ratio between the (light) hadron and charm yields. I propose " at energies below LHC energy, where the charm yield are small, .... while for LHC energies, the charms yields are larger, about % level of the hadronic yields, and the charmonium yield is enhanced.

We now write "A logical consequence of this is that at energies below LHC energy, where the charm yield are small, charmonium production is suppressed in comparison to scaled pp collisions, while for LHC energies, the charms yields are larger and the charmonium yield is enhanced"

TD: charm yield is singular, so I changed it to "... where the charm yield is small,..."

#2736 I understand the important quantity is the rapidity charm density (dsigma/dy).

??

TD: if the total charm cross section is on the lower end, doesn't the same apply for dsigma/dy (unless one uses some crazy rapidity distribution?)

#2739 Sec. [? ] remember to use \sect{} command

ok

#2742 "TFdebye his in" ???

already corrected

#2751 Section [? ]

Ok

eq 51 define all the parameters, namely gamma_Q

to be done

#2783 GeV/c2

Ok

#2815 J/psi ==> "into charmonium"

Ok

#2823 are SBS and WBS defined above?

yes, in line 2799-2800

#2843 One can mention here that the flat behaviour should dissappear at higher energies, or at low pT (or high pT)

Ok

#2869 multiple fm/c???

??

TD: how about "on the time scale of several fm/c" or "on a timescale of the order of few fm/c"?

#2875 Could you explain what is "non-equilibrium (anisotropic) rate fot quarkonium decays"?

??

TD: Andrea asked the same question, right?

#2881 remove "3d"

We already corrected it in "three-dimensional"

#2895 perhaps it could be mentioned that for this reason the SH model is independent on the CNM effects.

I'm now writing "It is assumed that no quarkonium state is produced in the deconfined state (full suppression) and, as a consequence, also CNM effects are not included in this model". Is it ok?

TD: I disagree: the SH model depends on shadowing effects as they can modify the total charm cross section as well as dsigma/dy.

#2913 It should be mentioned that you refere to LHC energies.

Ok

#2915-21 These lines are confusing. Why shadowing is not considered (#2920)? You are ou talking about shadowing on the open charm production, right? It should be mentioned. Shadowing effect on the charm production cross-section should always be considered.

??

TD: If I understand the situation correctly, transport and comover models start with a pp cross section scale up to Pb-Pb (binary scaling) and then include shadowing effects which reduces the cross section. On the other hand, SH starts off with a smaller pp cross section and scale that to Pb-Pb which effectively leads to a similar cross section in Pb-Pb as obtained by transport and comover models. Correct? Then I would propose to change the paragraph to:
"Note nevertheless that there is no contradiction, since in the latter the initial-state shadowing is not modelled. The choice of smaller cross section in \pp, $d\sigma_{pp}^{\ccbar}/dy \approx 0.3\text{--}0.4$\,mb, takes into account an shadowing effect of about 50\%, that reduces the charm cross section in \PbPb up to a factor of one half."
By the way, I don't like the "that reduces..." part. It sounds like we're explaining that 50% equals 1/2. Is there a better way to phrase this?

#2933 use same notation as in section 7 "Run1", "Run2" etc ...

Ok

#2933 remove "short"

Ok

#2968 "down to pT=0."

Ok

#2992 quote the energy, since "Pb -Pb energy" will be ambiguous very soon.

Ok

#3015 "section ??

Ok

#3032 "in the experimental data."

Ok

#3062" this is true for light quarks and gluons". For charm is slightly different since the transfer of v2 to the charm takes some time and the presence of v2 in the j/psi probes the fromation of the jpsi via recombination in later stages of the collision evolution.

Not sure where this has to be added...

TD: how about changing the sentence "This distribution is expected to be sensitive to the dynamics of the early stages of heavy-ion collision" to "This distribution is expected to be sensitive to the dynamics of the partonic stage of heavy-ion collision", which would address Gines comment regarding the recombination without being too specific.

#3078 Can you clarify what you mean by "path-length dependent suppression" please?

ok

#3115-16 I am not sure. Error bars are large. Where is the problem with the theoretical models here?

Here we would like to say that these data, at various energies or based on various system, should be a good testing ground for theory model. However, we now mention in the text the fact that we have large uncertainties: "In spite of the large uncertainties associated, up to now, to these results, this similarity presents a challenge to theoretical models that contain competing hot and cold matter effects with possibly different energy dependencies."

#3153 "regeneration" is seen as a "disadvantage". I do not agree. It is complementary and I would say that regeneration enrich the physics message.

Ok. What we mean here, is that regeneration complicates the "simpler" suppression scenario.

#3157-59 I would put more emphasis on the importance of the feed-down measurement.

??

TD: how about changing "feed down contributions ... are important for a quantitative understanding..." to "feed down contributions ... are crucial for a quantitative understanding..."?

#3171-76 I understand that this model assume dissociation of the Upsilon(1S) in the medium. this should be mentioned. What would happens if one assume that Upsilon 1S is not dissociated?

??

#3223 "Fig. ??", "and ??"

Ok

#3228 "Section 3"

Ok

#3244-47 I do not agree with this statement. These values agree in 1sigma!! What is important is the pT evolution pattern which are opposite.

This is mentioned few lines after (3248-3252). We now write "This observation can be strengthened comparing the \pt dependence of the \jpsi \raa to the one of the CNM effects evaluated as $\rpa(y) \times \rpa(-y)$..."

#3277 in a QGP

Ok

#3288 "if measured down to pT=0, ..."


Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 2015-05-06 - TorstenDahms
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    ReteQuarkonii All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback