1: %\documentstyle[12pt,twocolumn]{article}

2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

4: \topmargin -1cm

5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}

6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}

7: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

9: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

10: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

13: \def\bs{$\backslash$} \def\bslp{\baselineskip}

14: \def\spg{\setcounter{page}} \def\seq{\setcounter{equation}}

15: \def\bd{\begin{document}} \def\ed{\end{document}}

16: \def\bmp{\begin{minipage}} \def\emp{\end{minipage}}

17: \def\bcc{\begin{center}} \def\ecc{\end{center}}     \def\npg{\newpage}

18: \def\beq{\begin{equation}} \def\eeq{\end{equation}} \def\hph{\hphantom}

19: \def\be{\begin{equation}} \def\ee{\end{equation}} \def\r#1{$^{[#1]}$}

20: \def\n{\noindent} \def\ni{\noindent} \def\pa{\parindent}

21: \def\hs{\hskip} \def\vs{\vskip} \def\hf{\hfill} \def\ej{\vfill\eject}

22: \def\cl{\centerline} \def\ob{\obeylines}  \def\ls{\leftskip}

23: \def\underbar#1{$\setbox0=\hbox{#1} \dp0=1.5pt \mathsurround=0pt

24:    \underline{\box0}$}   \def\ub{\underbar}    \def\ul{\underline}

25: \def\f{\left} \def\g{\right} \def\e{{\rm e}} \def\o{\over} \def\d{{\rm d}}

26: \def\vf{\varphi} \def\pl{\partial} \def\cov{{\rm cov}} \def\ch{{\rm ch}}

27: \def\la{\langle} \def\ra{\rangle} \def\EE{e$^+$e$^-$} \def\pt{p_{\rm t}}

28: \def\bitz{\begin{itemize}} \def\eitz{\end{itemize}}

29: \def\btbl{\begin{tabular}} \def\etbl{\end{tabular}}

30: \def\btbb{\begin{tabbing}} \def\etbb{\end{tabbing}}

31: \def\beqar{\begin{eqnarray}} \def\eeqar{\end{eqnarray}}

32: \def\\{\hfill\break} \def\dit{\item{-}} \def\i{\item}

33: \def\bbb{\begin{thebibliography}{9} \itemsep=-1mm}

34: \def\ebb{\end{thebibliography}} \def\bb{\bibitem}

35: \def\bpic{\begin{picture}(260,240)} \def\epic{\end{picture}}

36: \def\akgt{\noindent{Acknowledgements}}

37: \def\fgn{\noindent{\bf\large\bf figure captions}}

38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  \begin{eqnarray*} \end{eqnarray}  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

40: \def\lan{\langle}

41: \def\ran{\rangle}

42: \def\p{\pi}

43: \def\ifmath#1{\relax\ifmmode #1\else $#1$\fi}%

44: \def\rc{\ifmath{{\mathrm{c}}}}

45: \def\cut{\ifmath{{\mathrm{cut}}}}

46: \def\rF{\ifmath{{\mathrm{F}}}}

47: \def\rK{\ifmath{{\mathrm{K}}}}

48: \def\rp{\ifmath{{\mathrm{p}}}}

49: \def\rt{\ifmath{{\mathrm{t}}}}

50: \def\LAB{\ifmath{{\mathrm{LAB}}}}

51: \def\cut{\ifmath{{\mathrm{cut}}}}

52: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

53: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

54: 

55: \newcommand{\cinst}[2]{$^{\mathrm{#1}}$~#2\par}

56: \newcommand{\crefi}[1]{$^{\mathrm{#1}}$}

57: \newcommand{\crefii}[2]{$^{\mathrm{#1,#2}}$}

58: \newcommand{\crefiii}[3]{$^{\mathrm{#1,#2,#3}}$}

59: \newcommand{\HRule}{\rule{0.5\linewidth}{0.5mm}}

60: 

61: \bd

62: 

63: \title{Charge Fluctuations in $\pi^{+}\rp$ and $\rK^{+}\rp$ Collisions at 250 GeV/$c$}

64: 

65: \author{M.R.~Atayan}

66: \affiliation{ Institute of Physics, AM-375036 Yerevan, Armenia}

67: 

68: \author{Bai Yuting}

69: \affiliation{ Institute of Particle Physics, Hua-Zhong Normal

70: University, Wuhan 430070, China}

71: 

72: \author{E.A.~De Wolf}

73: \affiliation{ Department of Physics, Universitaire Instelling

74: Antwerpen, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium}

75: 

76: \author{A.M.F.~Endler}

77: \affiliation{ Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, BR-22290 Rio

78: de Janeiro, Brazil}

79: 

80: \author{Fu Jinghua}

81: \affiliation{ Institute of Particle Physics, Hua-Zhong Normal

82: University, Wuhan 430070, China}

83: 

84: \author{H.~Gulkanyan}

85: \affiliation{ Institute of Physics, AM-375036 Yerevan, Armenia}

86: 

87: \author{R.~Hakobyan}

88: \affiliation{ Institute of Physics, AM-375036 Yerevan, Armenia}

89: 

90: \author{W.~Kittel}

91: \affiliation{ High Energy Physics Institute (HEFIN), University of

92: Nijmegen/NIKHEF, NL-6525~ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands}

93: 

94: \author{Liu Lianshou}

95: \affiliation{ Institute of Particle Physics, Hua-Zhong Normal

96: University, Wuhan 430070, China}

97: 

98: \author{Li Zhiming}

99: \affiliation{ Institute of Particle Physics, Hua-Zhong Normal

100: University, Wuhan 430070, China}

101: 

102: \author{Z.V.~Metreveli}

103: \affiliation{ Institute for High Energy Physics of Tbilisi State

104: University, GE-380086 Tbilisi, Georgia; now at Northwestern Univ.,

105: Evanston, U.S.A.}

106: 

107: \author{L.N.~Smirnova}

108: \affiliation{ Scobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosow

109: Moscow State University, RU-119899 Moscow, Russia}

110: 

111: \author{L.A.~Tikhonova}

112: \affiliation{ Scobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosow

113: Moscow State University, RU-119899 Moscow, Russia}

114: 

115: \author{A.G.~Tomaradze}

116: \affiliation{ Institute for High Energy Physics of Tbilisi State

117: University, GE-380086 Tbilisi, Georgia; now at Northwestern Univ.,

118: Evanston, U.S.A.}

119: 

120: \author{F.~Verbeure$^\dagger$}

121: \affiliation{ Department of Physics, Universitaire Instelling

122: Antwerpen, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium}

123: 

124: \author{Wu Yuanfang}

125: \affiliation{ Institute of Particle Physics, Hua-Zhong Normal

126: University, Wuhan 430070, China}

127: 

128: \author{S.A.~Zotkin}

129: \affiliation{ Scobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosow

130: Moscow State University, RU-119899 Moscow, Russia}

131: \affiliation{Now at DESY, Hamburg, Germany}

132: 

133: \collaboration{EHS/NA22 Collaboration}

134: 

135: \begin{abstract}

136: 

137: We report on measurements of event-by-event charge fluctuations in

138: $\pi^{+}\rp$ and $\rK^{+}\rp$ collisions at 250 GeV/$c$. The

139: dependence of these fluctuations on the size of the rapidity

140: windows are presented for the first time in the full phase space

141: domain. The corrections for the influence of global charge

142: conservation and leading-particle stopping are tested by the data.

143: The discrepancy due to incomplete correction given by STAR and

144: PHENIX are estimated. The dependence of the fluctuations on the

145: position of the rapidity bin and on the multiplicity at different

146: rapidity windows are also presented.

147: \end{abstract}

148: 

149: \pacs{13.85.Hd, 25.75.Gz}

150: 

151: \maketitle

152: 

153: The subject of event-by-event fluctuations has currently drawn a

154: lot of attention in both theoretical and experimental studies of

155: relativistic heavy ion collisions~\cite{reviews,oview}. It is

156: argued that information on the QCD phase transition---the

157: formation of Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP)---can be inferred from

158: measurements~\cite{qgp} among which event-by-event charge

159: fluctuations are considered as a promising

160: signature~\cite{charges,oview}. Due to the fractional electric

161: charges of quarks, the charges spread more evenly throughout the

162: QGP volume than in a hadronic gas and, therefore, the fluctuations

163: are expected to suffer an observable suppression in a

164: QGP~\cite{charges}.

165: 

166: %Later, it is shown to be a global measure of balance

167: %function~\cite{pratt}, which is suggested as a good clocking of

168: %hadronization in RHIC~\cite{bass}.

169: 

170: Recently, it has been demonstrated that event-by-event charge

171: fluctuation can be directly related to a thermodynamic

172: signature---the anomalous proton-number fluctuation at the

173: critical point~\cite{hatta}, which is supposed to enhance the

174: charge fluctuations. The observed enhancement of charge

175: fluctuations at RHIC and SPS ~\cite{oview} seems to be a good

176: support for these arguments, though the effects of limited

177: detector acceptance and other corrections need to be further

178: investigated.

179: 

180: The charge fluctuations are also sensitive to other effects, as

181: the number of resonances at chemical freeze-out~\cite{koch, heinz}

182: and fluctuations occurring in the initial stage~\cite{marek}. The

183: corresponding analyses are interesting by their own beyond the QGP

184: hypothesis~\cite{jacek}.

185: 

186: There are mainly two kinds of measures for the event-by-event

187: charge fluctuations on the market at present, others being related

188: to these under reasonable assumptions~\cite{oview}. One is that of

189: {\it net charge } fluctuations, the other that of {\it charge

190: ratio} fluctuations. The direct measure of {\it net charge}

191: fluctuations is the variance of net charge $Q$, \beq \delta

192: Q^2=\langle Q^2\rangle -\langle Q\rangle^2, \qquad Q=n^+-n^-, \eeq

193: 

194: \noindent where $n^+$ and $n^-$ are the numbers of positive and

195: negative particles observed in a particular phase space window

196: under consideration. The average is over all events in the sample.

197: If charge is randomly assigned to each particle, $\delta

198: Q^2=\langle n_{\rm ch} \rangle$, where $n_{\rm ch}=n^++n^-$. So

199: the measure for net charge fluctuations is defined as \beq

200: D(Q)=4\frac{\delta Q^2}{\langle n_{\rm ch}\rangle}, \eeq \noindent

201: {\it i.e.}, equal to $4$ for independent emission.

202: 

203: In order to reduce the fluctuations of $n_+$ and $n_-$ due to the

204: variation of impact parameter, {\it charge ratio} $R=n^+/n^-$

205: fluctuations are recommended in \cite{charges} and the

206: corresponding measure is \beq D(R)=\langle n_{\rm ch}\rangle\cdot

207: \delta R^2, \eeq

208: 

209: \noindent where $\delta R^2=\langle R^2 \rangle -\langle

210: R\rangle^2$.

211: 

212: In the high multiplicity limit, the above two measures are

213: approximately equal, with the leading order correction being $\sim

214: 1/\langle n_{\rm ch}\rangle$.

215: 

216: In accounting for the charge conservation in a large rapidity

217: window and a non-zero net charge due to non-negligible baryon

218: stopping, two correction factors~\cite{ccharge}, \beq

219: C_y=1-\frac{\langle n_{\rm ch}\rangle_{\Delta y}}{\langle n_{\rm

220: ch}\rangle_{\rm total}},

221:  \ \  C_{\mu}=\frac{\langle n_{\Delta y}^+\rangle^2}{\langle n_{\Delta y}^-\rangle^2} \ ,

222: \eeq \noindent are applied to the $D$-measures of Eq's.~(2) and

223: (3): \beq \tilde D=\frac{D}{C_yC_{\mu}}. \eeq

224: 

225: \begin{figure*}

226: \centering

227: \includegraphics[width=6.in]{fig11.epsi}% Here is how to import EPS art

228: \caption{\label{Fig. 1}(a)~Dependence of $D(Q)$ on the size of the

229: central rapidity window $|y|<\delta y/2$ with $0.001{\rm GeV}/c

230: <p_{\rm t}<10{\rm GeV}/c$ (open circles), $p_{\rm t}>0.1{\rm

231: GeV}/c$ (open squares), $p_{\rm t}>0.2{\rm GeV}/c$ (crosses), and

232: $p_{\rm t}>0.2{\rm GeV}/c,\  \Delta \phi=\pi/2$ (open triangles),

233: (b)~Corrected version of (a) by two factors. (c)~Corrected version

234: of (a) by only the $C_y$ factor of Eq.~(4). (d)~Dependence of

235: $D(Q)$ on the position of a unit-width rapidity window. Dotted,

236: dashed, solid and dot-dashed lines correspond to independent

237: emission, quark coalescence, resonance gas and QGP, respectively.

238: The solid circles correspond to random charge assigned to each

239: particle and open diamonds are the results from PYTHIA. }

240: \end{figure*}

241: 

242: The theoretical prediction~\cite{charges, oview} for the

243: $D$-measure in a QGP is $D=1$. It is 2.9 for a resonance

244: gas~\cite{charges, oview} and 3.26 in a quark coalescence

245: model~\cite{mquark, oview}.

246: 

247: Before comparing the data from different experiments with the

248: above expectations, one must know how the measurements depend on

249: the size of the rapidity window. This dependence has been

250: estimated in various models~\cite{charges, zaranek}, but the

251: results depend strongly on the assumptions for the rapidity

252: correlator and the width of acceptance. Therefore, a

253: model-independent study of the dependence of the fluctuations on

254: the size of the rapidity window in over the full rapidity domain

255: is called for.

256: 

257: In addition, one should test whether the correction factors given

258: by Eq.~(4) are valid. If correct, a rapidity window size scaling

259: should be observed in large rapidity windows due to the global

260: charge conservation. Moreover, the rapidity size for the onset of

261: the scaling will offer us a valuable scale for the relaxation time

262: of long-range correlation caused by charge

263: conservation~\cite{hatta, shuryak}.

264: 

265: Due to the limited acceptance in current heavy ion

266: experiments~\cite{phenix, star, na49}, this kind of study can only

267: be performed in hadron-hadron experiments, such as NA22, which is

268: equipped with a rapid cycling bubble chamber as an active vertex

269: detector and has excellent momentum resolution over its full

270: $4\pi$ acceptance.

271: 

272: In this letter, the dependence of the event-by-event net charge

273: and charge ratio fluctuations on the size of the rapidity window

274: is presented for $\pi^{+}\rp$ and $\rK^{+}\rp$ collisions at 250

275: GeV/$c$. Since no statistically significant differences are seen

276: between the results for $\pi^{+}$ and $\rK^{+}$ induced reactions,

277: the two data samples are combined for the purpose of this

278: analysis. A total of 44~524 non-single-diffractive events is

279: obtained after all necessary selections as described in detail

280: in~\cite{na22data}. Secondary interactions are suppressed by a

281: visual scan and the requirement of charge balance, $\gamma$

282: conversion near the vertex by electron identification.

283: 

284: The $D(Q)$-measure in central rapidity windows $|y|\hskip-1mm <

285: \hskip-1mm y_{\rm cut}$=$\delta y/2$ with $\delta y=0.2$, 0.5,

286: 0.7, 1.0 to 6 is presented in Fig.~1(a), where the open circles

287: are the NA22 data and the open diamonds correspond to the results

288: from PYTHIA 5.720~\cite{pythia} (this convention will be kept in

289: all the following figures). In order to compare the results to

290: those from STAR and PHENIX, data for the same low $p_{\rm t}$ and

291: azimuthal cuts as STAR~\cite{star} and PHENIX~\cite{phenix} are

292: also presented.

293: 

294: The solid circles correspond to random charge assigned to each

295: particle, which indeed gives the value of $4$ as expected, no

296: matter how small the multiplicity is in very narrow rapidity

297: intervals. This shows that the accuracy of event-by-event analysis

298: hardly depends on event multiplicity and thus can be useful even

299: for low multiplicity cases~\cite{bialas}. So, the dependence of

300: the data on centrality is not caused by an insufficient number of

301: particles~\cite{stanislaw}.

302: 

303: \begin{table}

304: \caption{\label{Table 1.} $D(Q)$ in different phase-space

305: domains.}

306: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

307: \hline\small

308:    phase-space domain & RHIC & NA22 \\ \hline

309:   $|y|<0.35$, $p_{\rm t}>0.2$GeV/$c$,  &$ 3.86\pm 0.028$&  $3.896\pm 0.025$\\

310:   $\Delta \phi=\pi/2.$ & (PHENIX) & \\ \hline

311:  $|y|<0.5$, $p_{\rm t}>0.1$GeV/$c$ &$2.8\pm 0.05$(cent.) & $2.786\pm 0.015$ \\

312:  &$3.1\pm 0.05$(peri.)& \\

313:  &(STAR)&\\ \hline

314: \end{tabular}

315: \end{table}

316: 

317: From Fig.~1(a), it can be seen that with the widening of the

318: rapidity window, the NA22 data keep decreasing from the value

319: close to 4 (as expected for independent emission) to 1 (as

320: expected for a QGP) and even below. The loss of small-$p_{\rm t}$

321: particles and the cut in azimuthal angle both enhance the

322: fluctuations. The $D(Q)$ obtained under the same cuts as

323: PHENIX~\cite{phenix} and STAR~\cite{star} are listed in Tab.~I.

324: Their values are consistent with ours.

325: 

326: Taking into account charge conservation in large rapidity windows

327: and leading-particle stopping, the corrected measure $\tilde D(Q)$

328: is presented in Fig.~1(b). The results decrease from about $2.9$

329: (as expected for resonance gas) to above 1. The scaling appears

330: when the size of the central rapidity window is larger than

331: $|y|<2$, showing that the influence of charge conservation and

332: leading-particle stopping have been well eliminated by the factor

333: defined in Eq.~(4) and the correlation length of charge

334: conservation is about $4$ rapidity units. The corrections reduce

335: the measure in small rapidity windows and enhance it in large

336: ones. Since the influence of global charge conservation always

337: enhances the fluctuations, {\it i.e.}, $C_y<1$ in Eq.~(4), the

338: suppression in small rapidity windows shows that the

339: leading-particle stopping is non-negligible. If only the effect of

340: global charge conservation is taken into account, as in

341: STAR~\cite{star}, this will always enhance the fluctuations and

342: the scaling behavior disappears. The results for such a correction

343: are presented in Fig.~1(c). So, the data from both STAR and PHENIX

344: exaggerate the fluctuations, the former considering only one

345: correction and the latter without corrections at all.

346: 

347: In Fig.~1(d), $D(Q)$ is presented for different positions of a

348: unit-width rapidity window. It is almost a constant near that of a

349: resonance gas, showing that the charge fluctuations are

350: insensitive to the position of the rapidity window and that the

351: local charge is non-equilibrium, as pointed out in~\cite{wuliu}.

352: 

353: We now turn to a similar study of the charge ratio fluctuations.

354: Due to the positive charge of the initial-state particles, the

355: average number of positively charged particles is higher than that

356: of negatively charged ones. Therefore, we present the $D$-measures

357: in terms of the charge ratios $R^+=n^+/n^-$ and $R^-=n^-/n^+$ in

358: Fig's.~2(a) and (b) separately, where events with $n^-=0$ and

359: $n^+=0$ have been excluded from the analysis of $R^+$ and $R^-$,

360: respectively. It can be seen from the figures that $D(R^+)$ have

361: much larger values than $D(R^-)$. Both of them have behavior very

362: different from that of net charge fluctuations.

363: 

364: \begin{figure}

365: %\centering

366: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{fig22.epsi}% Here is how to import EPS art

367: \caption{\label{Fig. 2} The dependence of $D(R^+)$ and $D(R^-)$

368: (upper row) and their corrected versions (lower row) on the size

369: of the central rapidity window $|y|<\delta y/2$. Open circles are

370: the NA22 data and open diamonds are the results from PYTHIA.}

371: \end{figure}

372: 

373: The charge ratio measures corrected according to Eq.~(4) is given

374: in Fig's.~2(c) and (d). All points are above independent emission

375: and increase rapidly with the widening of the central rapidity

376: window, in analogy with the model calculation~\cite{jpciae} for

377: A-A collisions. These results show that the corrections proposed

378: for {\it net charge} in the observed window as given by Eq.~(4)

379: are invalid for {\it charge ratio} fluctuations.

380: 

381: It is further interesting to check how these measures do in

382: recording the {\it change} of charge fluctuations with

383: multiplicity in different rapidity windows. This is important, in

384: particular, because the even- and odd-multiplicity distributions

385: coincide in small rapidity windows, {\it e.g.} $|y|<2$, while

386: separation of them appears in large windows, {\it e.g.},

387: $|y|<3.$~\cite{na22n}.

388: 

389: \begin{figure}

390: %\centering

391: \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{fig33.epsi}% Here is how to import EPS art

392: %\includegraphics[width=2.4in]{fig2.epsi}% Here is how to import EPS art

393: \caption{\label{Fig. 3} The dependence of $D(Q)$, $D(R^+)$ and

394: $D(R^-)$ on multiplicity in $|y| < 2$ (1st row) and $|y|<3$ (2nd

395: row). Open circles are the NA22 data and open diamonds are the

396: results from PYTHIA.}

397: \end{figure}

398: 

399: The dependence of $D(Q)$, $D(R^+)$ and $D(R^-)$ on multiplicity in

400: two rapidity windows is presented in Fig's.~3. The following can

401: be observed: (1)~First of all, all plots show clear multiplicity

402: dependence, while the results from PHENIX~\cite{phenix} in a small

403: central rapidity window show that only $D(R)$ depends on

404: multiplicity, while $D(Q)$ is independent of it. (2)~For $|y|<2$,

405: the fluctuations of even and odd multiplicities in terms of net

406: charge and charge ratios coincide within the error bars,

407: consistent with the coincidence of even- and odd-multiplicity

408: distributions in small rapidity windows. (3)~For $|y|<3$, the

409: $D(Q)$ separate for even- and odd-multiplicities,  consistent with

410: the separation of even- and odd-multiplicity distributions in

411: large rapidity windows. The $D(Q)$ have almost equal separation

412: distance for all multiplicities. While the $D(R^+)$ and $D(R^-)$

413: are separated differently for different multiplicities, with very

414: big errors for odd multiplicities, as they could be the

415: combinations of very different $n^+$ and $n^-$. These observations

416: show that $D(Q)$ is better in recording the change of charge

417: fluctuations with multiplicity in different size of central

418: rapidity windows.

419: 

420: The above results can be summarized as follows: (1)~$D(Q)$,

421: $D(R^+)$ and $D(R^-)$ depend strongly on the size of the central

422: rapidity window. (2)~$\tilde D(Q)$ eliminates the influence of

423: global charge conservation and leading-particle stopping. Its

424: scaling behavior is observed when the central rapidity window is

425: wider than $4$ rapidity units. The same corrections are invalid

426: for charge ratio fluctuations. (3)~$D(Q)$ is insensitive to the

427: position of the rapidity bin. (4)~$D(Q)$, $D(R^+)$ and $D(R^-)$

428: all have clear multiplicity dependence. $D(Q)$ has a better record

429: in distinguishing the charge fluctuations of even and odd

430: multiplicities than $D(R^+)$ and $D(R^-)$. (5)~PYTHIA can

431: reproduce almost all the data for charge fluctuations, while it

432: fails to describe the transverse momentum fluctuations in

433: different central rapidity windows~\cite{na22phipt}.

434: 

435: In summary,  the dependence of charge fluctuations on the size of

436: the rapidity window is presented for the first time in the full

437: rapidity domain. The correction factors for net charge

438: fluctuations given by Eq.~(4) eliminate the influence of global

439: charge conservation and leading-particle stopping. The latter is

440: non-negligible in small rapidity windows. Due to the incomplete

441: consideration on these two corrections, both STAR and PHENIX

442: exaggerate the fluctuations. The scale of long-range correlations

443: caused by charge conservation is about $4$ rapidity units at

444: $\sqrt s =22$ GeV/$c$. The measure in terms of net charge

445: fluctuations is better than that of charge ratio ones.

446: 

447: This work is part of the research program of the "Stichting voor

448: Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)", which is financially

449: supported by the "Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk

450: Onderzoek (NWO)". We further thank NWO for support of this project

451: within the program for subsistence to the former Soviet Union

452: (07-13-038). The Yerevan group activity is financially supported,

453: in the framework of the theme No. 0248, by the Government of the

454: Republic of Armenia. This work is also supported in part by the

455: National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Ministry of

456: Education of China and by the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences

457: under the Project numbers 01CDP017, 02CDP011 and 02CDP032 and by

458: the U.S. Department of Energy.

459: 

460: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

461: 

462: \bibitem {reviews} H. Heiselberg, {\it Phys. Reports} {\bf 351}, 161 (2001);

463: T.A. Trainor, hep-ph/0001148; S. Jeon and V. Koch, hep-ph/0304012.

464: %nucl-th/0003064, to appear in {\it Phys. Reports}.

465: 

466: \bibitem{oview} J. T. Mitchell, nucl-ex/0404005.

467: 

468: \bibitem{qgp} L. Van Hove, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C21}, 93 (1984);

469: L. Stodolsky, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 75}, 1044 (1995); M.

470: Stephanov, K. Rajagopal and E. Shuryak, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}

471: {\bf 81}, 4816 (1998).

472: 

473: \bibitem{charges} S. Jeon and V. Koch, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85}, 2076 (2000);

474:  M. Asakawa, U. Heinz and B. M\"uller,  {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85}, 2072 (2000);

475: V. Koch, M. Bleicher and S. Jeon, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A698},

476: 261 (2002).

477: 

478: %\bibitem{pratt} S. Jeon and S. Pratt, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C65}, 044902 (2002).

479: %\bibitem{bass} S. A. Bass, P. Danielewicz and S. Pratt, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85}, 2689 (2000).

480: 

481: \bibitem{hatta} Y. Hatta and M. A. Stephanov, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 91}, 102003 (2003).

482: 

483: \bibitem{koch} S. Jeon and V. Koch, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 83}, 5435

484: (1999).

485: 

486: \bibitem{heinz} J. Sollfrank and U. Heinz, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B289}, 132

487: (1992).

488: 

489: \bibitem{marek} M. Ga\'zdzicki and S. Mr\'owczy\'nski,

490: nucl-th/0012094.

491: 

492: \bibitem{jacek} J. Zaranet, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C66}, 024905 (2002).

493: 

494: \bibitem{ccharge} M. Bleicher, S. Jeon and V. Koch, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C62},

495: 061902 (2000).

496: 

497: \bibitem{mquark} A. Bia\l as, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B532}, 248

498: (2002).

499: 

500: \bibitem{zaranek} J. Zaranek, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C66}, 024905 (2002).

501: 

502: \bibitem{shuryak} E. V. Shuryak and M. A. Stephanov, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf

503: C63}, 064903 (2001).

504: 

505: \bibitem{phenix} K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX Coll.),

506: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89}, 082301 (2002); J. Nystrand,

507: nucl-ex/0209019.

508: 

509: \bibitem{star} J. Adams {\it et al.} (STAR Coll.), {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf

510: C68}, 044905 (2003); Claude A. Pruneau, nucl-ex/0304021.

511: 

512: \bibitem{na49} S. V. Afanasiev {\it et al.} (NA49 Coll.),

513: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A698}, 104c (2002).

514: 

515: \bibitem{na22data}

516: M. Adamus {\it et al.} (NA22 Coll.), {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C32}, 476

517: (1986); {\it ibid} {\bf C39}, 311 (1988); M.R. Atayan {\it et al.}

518: (NA22 Coll.), {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C21}, 271 (2001).

519: 

520: \bibitem{pythia} T. Sj\"ostrand, {\it Comp. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 82},

521: 74 (1994).

522: 

523: \bibitem{bialas} A. Bia\l as and V. Koch, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B456}, 1 (1999).

524: 

525: \bibitem{stanislaw} S. Mr\'owczy\'nski, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf

526: C66}, 024904 (2002).

527: 

528: \bibitem{wuliu} Wu Yuanfang and Liu Lianshou,  {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D41}, 845 (1990).

529: 

530: \bibitem{jpciae} Ben-Hao Sa, Xu Cai, Zong-Di Su, An Tai and Dai-Mei Zhou,

531: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C66}, 044902 (2002).

532: 

533: \bibitem{na22n} M. Adamus et al. (NA22 Coll.), {\it Z. Phys. } {\bf C37}, 215 (1988).

534: 

535: \bibitem{na22phipt} M. R. Atayan et al. (NA22 Coll.), {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89}, 121802 (2002).

536: \end{thebibliography}

537: 

538: \ed

539: 

540: %\bibitem{koch2} M. D\"oring and V. Koch, {\it Acta Physica

541: %Polonica} {\bf 33}, 1495(2002}.

542: 

543: %\bibitem{zhang}Q. H. Zhang, V. Topor Pop, S. Jeon and C. Gale, {\it Phys. Rev.}

544: %{\bf C66}, 014909 (2002).

545: %

546: %\bibitem{bopp}F.W. Bopp and J. Ranft, {\it Acta Phys. Polon.}

547: %{\bf B33}, 1505 (2002); {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C22}, 171 (2001).

548: %\bibitem{bialas} A. Bia\l as, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B523}, 249 (2002).

549: