[Hybrid baryons] Technical Advisory Report

[burkert]

Hi Adam and Victor,

  There is no need for a response. Once the PAC says we should develop a 
full proposal then we can include the recommendations of the theory group.

Volker


On 6/14/15 2:57 PM, Viktor Mokeev wrote:
>    Hi Adam,
>
>   I don't know on whether we should answer the comments for LOI. May be, we will take them into account in the full proposal preparation.
>
> I suggest you to contact to Volker for definite answer.
>
>    Best Regards,
>                       Victor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aszczepa" <aszczepa at indiana.edu>
> To: "hybrid baryons" <hybrid_baryons at jlab.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:27:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Hybrid baryons] Technical Advisory Report
>
> Hi Victor
> What is the format/procedure for the response ?
> Adam
> ----------------------------------
> Adam Szczepaniak
> Department of Physics and CEEM
> Indiana University
> Jefferson Lab
> aszczepa at indiana.edu
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Viktor Mokeev < mokeev at jlab.org > wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Please find some considerations in regards of Joe evaluation:
>
> ``... no discussion is given regarding the other predicted hybrid baryons, the I= 1=2 state with JP= 5=2+ and
> the two I= 3 =2 states"
>
> Joe always emphasized that LQCD information on high mass/spin hybrids still less reliable than for lowest states. This is the reason for consideration of the lowest mass hybrids. Another reason is: decays widths of higher mass hybrids become larger. They are getting strongly overlapped with many others regular/hybrid nucleon excitations. Therefore, extraction of information from the experimental data on higher mass hybrids becomes increasingly difficult.
>
> ``...Since the extraction of resonance
> pole information from amplitude analysis is a vital step in the program,
> more detailed discussion and references should be presented, beyond simply
> referring to \these advanced tools"
>
> This is a fair proposal. I would suggest to ask Adam to help us in addressing this comment.
>
> Should we respond for this comments?
>
> Best Regards,
> Victor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "burkert" < burkert at jlab.org >
> To: "hybrid baryons" < hybrid_baryons at jlab.org >
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:44:32 PM
> Subject: [Hybrid baryons] Technical Advisory Report
>
> Dear all,
>
> Attached please find the JLab internal theory report on our letter of
> intent.
> It is generally positive and makes some suggestions for the future
> proposal.
>
> Volker
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hybrid_baryons mailing list
> Hybrid_baryons at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hybrid_baryons
> _______________________________________________
> Hybrid_baryons mailing list
> Hybrid_baryons at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hybrid_baryons
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hybrid_baryons mailing list
> Hybrid_baryons at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hybrid_baryons
> _______________________________________________
> Hybrid_baryons mailing list
> Hybrid_baryons at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hybrid_baryons