Comment on "Investigation of Hadron Multiplicity and Hadron Yield Ratios in Heavy-Ion Collisions"

A Scientific Analysis of the Preprint arXiv:1301.1828v1 [nucl-th]

“…Scientific vs. nonscientific statements in [1]. First of all it is necessary to remind that, in contrast to the statement No 1 of the authors of the Comment [1], there are NO any "experimental results in baryo-chemical potentials µ b and their corresponding temperatures T" at chemical freeze out or at any other stage of heavy ion reaction. This is because such quantities (and all other thermodynamic quantities) cannot be directly measured in the experiments.…”

“…Furthermore, due to the absence of the first principle theoretical arguments in the phenomenological analysis of the experimental data any statement like No 2 that some phenomenological result is wrong indicates that the authors of the Comment [1] (HRGM1 hereafter) have NO any solid scientific arguments against the results of work [2] (HRGM2 hereafter). A detailed analysis of their model outlined in [5] completely supports such a conclusion.…”

“…A detailed analysis of their model outlined in [5] completely supports such a conclusion. The worst, however, is that the authors of the Comment [1] claim wrong not only the results of [2], but many years of research to formulate the most successful version of the HRGM [3,4] (HRGM3 hereafter) on which our formulation HRGM2 [2] is mainly based. Although the particle table and the treatment of the resonance width in the HRGM2 [2] are slightly different compared to the HRGM3 [3,4] the main results of these models are very close to each other.…”

“…Moreover, as one can see from [12] the critique put forward in [2] is accepted and the corresponding conservation laws are modified. [1]. The HRGM1 used by the authors of the Comment [1] is highly unrealistic since it does not possess the Properties I-IV and, hence, any physical conclusion drawn out of it is simply unrealistic.…”

“…The HRGM1 used by the authors of the Comment [1] is highly unrealistic since it does not possess the Properties I-IV and, hence, any physical conclusion drawn out of it is simply unrealistic. Moreover, the main critique of the authors of the Comment [1] is based on the parameterization [8] (squares) and in [3] (circles) for the same value of the hard core radius of all hadrons R = 0.3 fm. The solid curve in the left panel is a fit to the results of [2] and [3] by Eq.…”