5 the correlated particles, this phenomena would lead to large spikes of particles emitted at one limited φ angular region in individual events. This is defi- nitely not observed in the Au Au or other collision data at RHIC. Therefore, a distributed ring of small sources around the beam as assumed in the PBM is necessary to explain both the HBT results[7] and the correlation data[12]. The particles emitted from the same bubble are virtually uncorrelated to particles emitted from any other bubble except for momen- tum conservation requirements. An away side peak in the total correlation is built up from momentum conservation between the bubbles. 30-80% jet quenching is not strong enough to make jets negligible therefore, a jet component was added which was based on HIJING calculations. This jet component accounts for more of the correlation as one moves toward peripheral bins, and explains all of it for the most peripheral collisions. The PBME ex- plained in a reasonably quantitative manner (within a few percent) the behavior of the recent quantita- tive experimental analysis of charge pair correlations as a function of centrality[14]. This further strength- ened the substantial evidence for bubble substruc- ture. The agreement of the PBM and the PBME surface emission models with experimental analyses strongly implied that at kinetic freezeout the fire- ball was dense and opaque in the central region and most centralities (except the peripheral region) in the intermediate transverse momentum region (0.8 < p t < 4.0 GeV/c). Thus we conclude that the ob- served correlated particles are both formed and emit- ted from or near the surface of the fireball. In the peripheral region the path to the surface is always III. THE PBM FOR OTHER CENTRALITIES(PBME[13]) The PBM was also recently extended to PBME[13] which is identical to the PBM for cen- tral collisions (0-5%). For centralities running from FIG. 3: Each bubble contains 3-4 partons as shown. Parton Bubble 3-4 Partons Fixed   Different  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .