5.3 The double ratio of R c $_{AA}$( p$_{T}$ ) to R b $_{AA}$( p$_{T}$ ) predictions for Lhc using Eq. (5.1) for AdS/CFT and WHDG [152] for pQCD with a wide range of input parameters. The generic difference be- tween the pQCD results tending to unity contrasted to the much smaller and nearly p$_{T}$ -independent results from AdS/CFT can be easily distinguished at $_{Lhc}$. The “(” and “]” denote mo- menta after which possible string theoretic corrections may need to be considered; the curves’ increasing transparency from “(” to “]” is meant to additionally emphasize this, see text. . . . . 130 

5.4 The power law production index n$_{Q}$ ( p$_{T}$ ) for Rhic and $_{Lhc}$. While it is quite flat–but slowly increasing–over a large mo- mentum range at $_{Lhc}$, at Rhic n$_{Q}$ ( p$_{T}$ ) hardens appreciably as momentum increases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 

5.5 R c $_{AA}$( p$_{T}$ ) and R b $_{AA}$( p$_{T}$ ) for Rhic using AdS/CFT drag and the pQCD-based WHDG model. Note how the rapid increase in n$_{Q}$ for Rhic as seen in Fig. 5.4 overcomes the decrease in the fractional energy loss for the pQCD predictions for charm and bottom R$_{AA}$ ( p$_{T}$ ) so that both AdS/CFT drag and pQCD results decrease as a function of momentum at $_{Rhic}$. . . . . . . . . . 134 

