[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Tensor Correlations Measured in 3He(e,e′ pp)n

[Larry Weinstein]

Dear Reinhard,

Thank you for the excellent comments.  I will try to incorporate Laget's 
calculations into the figures (and see if they are still readable).  The 
other comments will be incorporated in the next version to be posted.

Reinhard Schumacher wrote:
> Hi Larry, Hovannes, and Jean-Marc,
>
> Your draft paper on \"Tensor Correlations Measured in 3He...\" was a
> pleasure to read: quite clear for the non-specialist and interesting.
> The first pages are, however, easier to digest that the last parts.  I
> recommend that you introduce the notion of \"tensor correlations\" in
> the introductory paragraphs, and explain the physics issue related to
> them with the same clarity as you discuss the other generalities.  The
> non-specialist reader will need this if he is expected to keep reading
> the technical parts.  I don\'t have the feeling that it will be a
> shoo-in at PRL, but it is worth a try.
>    
I added a sentence distinguishing between central and tensor 
correlations in the introduction.

> My comments are given in order of the text:
>
> Page 2, column 1 bottom: your use of the word \"quasielastic\" may be
> problematical here.  In both the last line of the text and in the
> caption, you specify what is, in fact, the ELASTIC (not quasielastic)
> kinematics.  I would omit the \"quasi-\" qualifier and just say the
> relationships given specify the elastic kinematics..
>    
"Quasielastic" really just means 'elastic kinematics, but inside a 
nucleus'.  I think that is the correct nomenclature here.
> Page 2, column 2, paragraph 1 last line, and paragraph 2, line 5: You
> use the word \"cut\" very many times in this paper, without
> discriminating two senses of the word.  When asked, most people
> construe a \"cut\" on data as a *rejection* of a certain class of
> events.  On the other hand, sometimes you use the word in the sense of
> *selection* of a set of events.  In the indicated places, you use it
> in the *selection* sense.  With a little effort, you can clarify the
> narrative by replacing the word \"cut\" with a more descriptive phrase,
> such as \"selections\" or \"cut to select\", etc.  This would improve
> readability.
>    
Done.
> Page 3 Fig 3 caption:  the last sentence in the caption is redundant
> with the last sentence in the preceding paragraph.  I would say it
> only once.
>    
Done.
> Page 3, column 2, paragraph 3:  The discussion of the calculation by
> Laget is weakened by the fact that the calculation is not shown in
> this paper.  It renders the paper a little off kilter.  Can you not
> add curves from his calculation?
>    
I'll try.
> Page 4, column 1, paragraph 2: You make several *key* assertions here
> that the non-expert cannot possibly know about without diving into the
> literature. How and why is it known that the pp pairs at low p_tot
> have a minimum in relative momentum that the pn pairs do not? Exactly
> how is it that the tensor interaction brings this about?  I would
> invest a few sentences here to spell this out in some detail, since it
> is a key step in arriving at your main scientific conclusion.  The
> paper would be stronger if you explain this better.
>    
Thank you.  This is a key point.  I added a line pointing out the pp 
s-wave is required by anti-symmetrization and that the tensor 
correlation introduces d-wave components that do not have a minimum at 
p_rel = 0.4 GeV/c and therefore fill in the minimum.
> That is all for now.
> Good luck...
>
> Reinhard.
>
>
>    

-- 
				Sincerely,
				Larry

-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Weinstein
University Professor
Physics Department
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23529
757 683 5803
757 683 3038 (fax)
weinstein at odu.edu
http://www.lions.odu.edu/~lweinste/