[Clas12_verystrange] [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: Preoparation for RGA jeopardy

Wed May 20 09:04:18 EDT 2020

Hi Lei and Nick,

Please find your attached doc with my 2c contribution

Cheers, igor

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:53 AM nicholas <nicholas at jlab.org> wrote:

> See attached. Maybe we can put it into a google document?
>
> -N
>
>
> On 20 May 2020, at 12:42, Lei Guo <leguo at fiu.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi, Nick,
>
> All sounds good. Do you mind editing it into the document I sent earlier?
>
> Lei
>
> On May 20, 2020, at 7:22 AM, nicholas <nicholas at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> Note: This message originated from outside the FIU Faculty/Staff email
> system.
>
> Hi Lei,
>
> I think we should also point out that the current work on VS has still
> high impact and that no other new data have emerged since the proposal.
> Maybe we can put a bit more emphasis on eletroproduction and the Q^2
> dependence and that the full planned data is needed since electroproduction
> is associated with smaller cross-sections. Of course there is no other
> place other than JLab to do this.
>
> I am not 100% convinced on the next run conditions… We have some time and
> we might need to go back and do a bit more detailed simulations again and
> see how we could enhance cascade signals (especially related to the torus
> polarity). This might be tricky though as we would need the full RGA to be
> onboard.
>
> my 2 cents..
> -N
>
> On 20 May 2020, at 11:30, Lei Guo <lguo at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, All,
>
> Here is a first thought of what we could provide to Marco for the RGA
> jeopardy, and I will organize it according to Marco’s request bullets; I
> also attach it in a word document, so please feel free to edit. I can make
> them into a proper document/format in the way Marco wants once everyone has
> the input.
> <RGA_Jeopardy_VS.docx>
>
> 1. Physics Motivation (what’s new in addition to what’s stressed in the
> proposal).
> 1.a. Cascade electroproduction (using electrons in the forward detector
> instead of FT. We have already seen decent cascade signals from several
> people in Very Strange. We could provide the plots showing the MM(eK+K+)
> spectrum. Any results of cascade electroproduction would be new, whether
> it’s detailed differential cross sections  or simply some total cross
> sections which should be feasible.
> 1.b The Belle 2018 results (PRL 122, 072501)of “new” cascades using the
> Xi-pi+ spectra is very interesting. CLAS results in 2007 (PRC76,025208)in
> similar channel did report the Xi(1530) cross section in similar channel
> (Xi0jpi-), and there was a bump around 1620 MeV but it was not
> statistically signifiant.
> 1.c Excited S=-1 Hyperons: We did mention that in the proposal but not the
> main part. But it could be a major part of the physics results coming out
> of Very Strange group.
> 2. Preliminary Results from very strange:
> We should probably show what we have;
> 2.a eK+pi-p: Lambda signals
> 2.b. MM(eK+K+) using forward detectors.
> 3. Justification for the remaining 50%: Very Strange would clearly benefit
> from the remaining 50%. We might end up with OK statistics for ground state
> cascades or Excited S=-1 hyperons. But excited cascades and Omega would
> need any more statistics we can get. For existing RGA data using the beam
> charge of about 250mC, we expect somewhat 300 Xi(1820) (from a recent
> exercise from Achyut that used updated CLAS12 simulation) using the upper
> limit of cross section from g12 (PRC98, 062201, Rapid Communication).  Of
> course that lower beam energy and the cross section was likely much lower.
> 4. Specific requests for the next run conditions: Fall-2018—later
> conditions seems to be more optimized, so no changes from that?
>
>
>
> On May 17, 2020, at 7:27 PM, Eugene Pasyuk <pasyuk at jlab.org> wrote:
>
> We should discuss this at our Tuesday meeting. Please attend and come with
> ideas.
>
> -Eugene
>
> *From:* Marco Battaglieri <battagli at jlab.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2020 19:07
> *To:* Raffaella De Vita <devita at jlab.org>; Daniel Watts <
> daniel.watts at york.ac.uk>; derek glazier <dglazier at ph.ed.ac.uk>; Lei Guo <
> lguo at jlab.org>; nicholas <nicholas at jlab.org>; Eugene Pasyuk <
> pasyuk at jlab.org>
> *Cc:* Adam Szczepaniak <aszczepa at jlab.org>; Igor Strakovsky <igor at gwu.edu>
> *Subject:* Preoparation for RGA jeopardy
>
> Dear colleagues,
> as you know RGA will defend the unscheduled time in the jeopardy process
> at the next PAC in August.
> I’m assembling two pages related to MesonEx-related  experiments
> (E12-11-005 and E12-11-005A) in CLAS12 to be included in the 10pg document
> RGA will provide to the PAC48 committee.
> Following the spirit of the jeopardy process (as far as I understood it!)
> we should provide:
> - an assessment of the physics case after ~10y from the proposal
> - justification for keep allocated the other 50% of data taking
> - preliminary results (on the 50% of data already collected)
> - any change/needs in scheduling wrt what has already been allocated
>
> So far MesonEx (as part of RGA), over the 119 allocated PAC days used ~50%
> of the time.
> Requested:
> - 80 days: production, high L (1E135)
> - 15 days FT commissioning
> - 24 days: low L (5x10E33) for calibration and trigger tests
> Not fully clear to me how to consider the 15+24 ‘special’ days allocated
> but before to make any fuzz we should understand if we need any low L data
> ..
>
> I’d start from considering that we need to justify a remaining 50% of data
> taking at high Lumi (standard RGA production time).
>
> Two pages are not difficult to write on the subject but before to start
> I’d like to have from all of you a 1/2-1pg list (bullets) of items that we
> should report in the document.
> I included Adam and Igor in this request because they should be able to to
> provide a quick  feedback in particular on progress on amplitude analysis
> worldwide and specifically at JPAC(Adam) and very strange spectroscopy
> (Igor).
> Here are the of topics (not only but  at least) that you are expected to
> cover in your 1/2-1pg list:
> - Physics motivation: what’s new from theory side (Adam, Igor) and
> experimental (Raffaella, Lei, Dan)  after 10y from the proposal
> - preliminary results from RGA: (Raffaella, Derek, Nick and Eugene)
> - justification for the remaining 50% (all)
> - specific requests for the next run conditions? (all)
>
> If you could send me your thoughts (not necessary to be fully elaborated,
> just ideas, reference, and cues ..) in two-three days (by *Wednesday
> May20*), I’ll put together and circulate the document by the end of the
> week for your final review.
> Thanks in advance
> Marco
>
> ps I did not include all active members of the two experiments simply to
> keep the number of involved people limited. As soon as the document will be
> drafted, all spokespersons will be contacted.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailman.jlab.org_mailman_listinfo_clas12-5Fverystrange&d=DwMFaQ&c=lhMMI368wojMYNABHh1gQQ&r=ZtzGbH1S-mwT-r2cWPwnAw&m=0XlqvTqFrrn2Yi7Cdv9RaXIO8Fs5fdxCT1BVIgJ5-yo&s=2dE1PTmbfCG9GUHzpLQWSLid6y41EvdekxX-gigt9lw&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas12_verystrange mailing list
> Clas12_verystrange at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_verystrange
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_verystrange/attachments/20200520/e2d15469/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RGA_Jeopardy_VS_nick.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20744 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_verystrange/attachments/20200520/e2d15469/attachment-0002.docx>