Probing Dense Nuclear Matter in the Laboratory: Experiments at FAIR and NICA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript by Peter Senger reviews the studies on high-density EOS and possible phase transition from hadronic to quark matter in the recent years. Many discussions have been raised in the probing of dense nuclear matter, which has been a long existing frontier in the field of nuclear physics and astrophysics. The manuscript is well written, the work is timely and important and shall be published quickly on Universe. But before it is accepted for publication, the following suggestions need to be addressed.

1. Page 3, line 86, besides the collective flow of particles and the yield of strange particles, pion yield ratio is also a well-known probe to constrain the isospin depedent EOS, see, e.g., Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 162701 for a very recent paper.
2. Page 3, line 95, \delta in K_{nm} should be d
3. Page 3, line 97, K_{nm}=230+/-10 MeV seems to optimistic, as it also depends on other effects, see, e.g., Phys. Rev. C 89, 044316 (2014) by Stone.
4. Page 3, line 113-114, Physics Letters B 778 (2018) 207–212 is an updated study of Ref.[8], which gives K_{nm}=220+/-40 MeV.
5. Page 4, line 133, date should be data
6. Page 6, line 212, \rho0 -> \rho_0

Author Response

Thank you very much for the careful review and indicating recent references. I have included all suggetions into the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper summarizes the ongoing preparation of the CBM experiment at FAIR and BM@N and MPD experiments at NICA. All experiments are designed to shed some lights on the nuclear equation of state for dense matter. The subject is quite complimentary to the astronomical observations for neutron stars and the recently found neutron star merger. The paper is very well organized and written. I recommend the publication with minor revision. The minor comments are listed below: 

1. p.1, line 36: "TOF" should be changed to "TOV".
2. p.3, line 88: Remove "at" in "at in heavy-ion ...".
3. p.4, line 130: "sim" should be changed to "sym".
4. p.4, line 133: "date" should be changed to "data".
5. p.5, line 163: Add "(or direct flow)" right after "transverse flow" as the author uses the term direct flow later on.
6. p.10, lines 342-344: In the beginning, it would be better to briefly explain about the suppression of charmonia due to the deconfinement in heavy-ion collisions. To judge whether the charmonium yield is large or not, one should compare the data with the estimated suppressed amount.
7. p.10, line 347 & 366: "c" should be subscript. 
8. p.10, line 355: "and the SHM" -> "(SHM)"
9. p.10, line 357: "not charm" -> "no charm"
10. p.10: The author uses various expressions for anti-D mesons. Choose only one expression of "D bar", "antiD", or "anti-D", and use it consistently.
11. p.12, line 427: "instable" -> "unstable"
12. p.14, Fig. 10: It would be better to give the names of the detector components with arrows in the figure. 
13. p.14, line 497: remove one of "in"s.
14. p.15, line 521: Change the expression "host in his gap" in an appropriate form.
15. p.15, line 527: "be" -> "been"
16. p.15, line 536: "hast" -> "has"
17. p.15, Fig. 12: Many detector components (e.g., Si beam tracker) are not shown. Is this intentional?
18. p.17, Fig. 14: In the caption, it would be better to indicate that "STAR F.t." means the STAR fixed-target mode experiment. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the careful reading and the suggestions, which I have included.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor,

In the manuscript 

"Probing dense nuclear matter in the laboratory: Experiments at FAIR and NICA"

the author, Peter Senger, presents a condensed overview of the current results on the properties of nuclear matter, both from laboratory measurements of heavy ions and from the astrophysical inference on neutron stars. The review refers to the latest results, identifies the open problems and points to directions in which the nuclear and particle physics will proceed in the nearest future. The latter include the investigation of exotic states of matter, referred to as a "QCD matter" in the manuscript, with strangeness and charm production, investigation of phase properties of this matter, search for deconfinment signatures. 

The second part of the paper presents the infrastructures and tools that are
being built to explore the new directions - the FAIR and NICA projects.

The manuscript is well written and will certainly draw attention of scientists, young researchers and students looking for the horizons of the contemporary heavy ion and particle physics as well as astrophysics. It well deserves publication.

Some minor comments, corrections and suggestions.  

The author uses often the term "QCD matter" which sounds very exotic and
abstract. It sounds more like a theoretical concept than a real substance we are searching for. It would be helpful to define it somewhere at the beginning.

l. 71: created heavy-ion -> created in/during heavy-ion
l. 88: measured at in heavy-ion -> measured in heavy-ion
l. 108: can been created -> can be created
l. 122: Fermi energy -> nucleon momentum distribution ?
l. 129: matter . -> matter.
l. 133: The date -> The data
l. 212: 3.5 rho^0 -> 3.5 rho_0
l. 218: line indicated -> line indicates
l. 232: expect to measure about -> expect to measure about one (?) ... nucleus
l. 258: assuming a EOS  -> assuming an EOS
l. 266: stars with each -> stars each with
l. 357: not charm -> no charm
l. 393: an hadronic -> a hadronic
l. 436: atomic physic, plasma physic -> atomic physics, plasma physics
l. 469: performed an unprecedented -> performed with an unprecedented
l. 485: Project Spectator  -> Projectile Spectator
l. 507: up a magnetic -> up to a magnetic
l. 527: have be measured -> have been measured
l. 536: hast to be -> has to be
l. 561: Layout -> layout
l. 579: decrease drastically -> decreases drastically
l. 639: Blaisot -> Blaizot
l. 721: Kisel -> Kisiel

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the carefull reading and the suggestions, which I have taken into account.