argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
Coalescence suppression argument
forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →The probability of producing a strangelet in heavy-ion collisions decreases as collision energy increases.
The argument
Given that linked claim, and because linked claim and linked claim, raising the collision energy makes the environment both hotter and poorer in the net baryons a strangelet must assemble from, so the probability of producing one falls.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →Strangelet production in heavy-ion collisions proceeds mainly through coalescence of baryons.
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Net baryon density at mid-rapidity decreases with increasing heavy-ion collision energy.
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Hotter collision fireballs disfavor coalescence of composite nuclear states.
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.