Paper detail

Rapidity dependence of the proton-to-pion ratio in Au+Au and p+p collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 62.4 and 200 GeV

The proton-to-pion ratios measured in the BRAHMS experiment for Au+Au and p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV are presented as a function of transverse momentum and collision centrality at selected pseudorapidities in the range of 0 to 3.8. A strong pseudorapidity dependence of these ratios is observed. We also compare the magnitude and p_T-dependence of the p/pi ratios measured in Au+Au collisions at \rootsnn{200} and $η\approx 2.2$ with the same ratio measured at \rootsnn{62.4} and $η= 0$. The great similarity found between these ratios throughout the whole p_T range (up to 2.2 GeV/$c$) is consistent with particle ratios in A+A collisions being described with grand-canonical distributions characterized by the baryo-chemical potential \mibn. At the collision energy of 62.4 GeV, we have observed a unique point in pseudorapidity, $η= 3.2$, where the p/pi+ ratio is independent of the collision system size in a wide p_T-range of $0.3 \le p_{T} \le 1.8$ GeV/$c$.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.