No abstract

No abstract

We show that in order to explain the observed dependence of multiplicity distributions on energy and shifts of the centers of rapidity bins it is sufficient to assume the existence of two sources. One source is concentrated at small rapidities and has properties of a thermally equilibrated system as could be expected from a quark-gluon plasma. The other one, contributing to the whole rapidity region, displays characteristics of bremsstrahlung emission.

the Comment compares the third moment f$ at CERN ISR energies with data and finds that the model "overestimates seriously" the values of/V We disagree with the procedure chosen by the author to judge the compatibility of the model with data and therefore also with the conclusion which he draws from this procedure, namely, that "the model does not describe the data really well." It is not enough to test the model by comparison of the moments, but one should rather compare the entire distribution Pin).However, even here one has to be careful because adjoining n bins are still intercorrelated. In order to eliminate these correlations as far as possible, we grouped these bins.Therefore, we believe that our method of testing the model is preferable to that used in the Comment.As to the comparison of the two-component model (2CM) with the negative binomial distribution (NBD) we believe that to test a model in general one has to look into all its implications at the same time; otherwise one is in danger of missing the forest through the trees. Here the NBD meets with difficulties because among other things it cannot fit the Pin) in shifted rapidity bins while the 2CM can. Moreover, in a recent detailed analysis of the apparent successes of the NBD, Szwed, Wrochna, and Wroblewski 1 reach the conclusion that it has "serious shortcomings which cast doubt on its usefulness in describing and interpreting experimental data." If one adds to this the strange y and energy dependence of the NBD parameter k and the lack of any predictive power of the NBD, and compares this with the transparent and appealing physics of the 2CM, the advantages of the latter approach are obvious.(2) The model presented is the simplest two-component approach conceivable at present. We have indicated how it could be made more realistic by the introduction of inelasticity, final-state interactions, etc. It is our belief, based on our experience with these corrections, that the main features of the model (i.e., the existence of a predominantly chaotic source in the center of an essen-tially coherent one at large rapidities) will survive. These physical properties are testable by pion interferometry by measurement of the Bose-Einstein correlations at small and large rapidities. According to the two-component model, in the center the Bose-Einstein bunching should be larger than at the periphery.As to the question of the QCD bremsstrahlung process raised by the Comment, it is unclear at first whether the narrow (Poisson-type) distribution is due to quark-gluon bremsstrahlung or hadron bremsstrahlung and therefore a recoilless-type bremsstrahlung is not to be ruled out. Secondly, a consistent QCD calculation is certainly beyond the reach of present theoretical knowledge; much less can its phenomenological consequences be predicted and exploited. Therefore, the negative predictions of the Comment appear to us unjustified. Instead of speculating about what a not-yet-existing theory could or would do, it appears to be more useful to try to understand in terms o...

No abstract