[Hybrid baryons] Proposal Draft - reorganized
Ralf Gothe
rwgothe at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 09:35:51 EDT 2016
Dear Daniel,
I'm just working on Viktor's last version (sent 12h ago). Since you wanted
to start this afternoon and if you don't mind, then I keep doing so and
send you either this after noon (let me know if you prefer this option) or
before the end of the what I have.
Cheers, Ralf
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Annalisa D'Angelo <
annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it> wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
> thank you for your very active and useful contribution.
> I fully agree on your proposal. Please get in contact also with Ralph who
> I had asked to review the same Sections
> last Saturday.
>
> My intention is indeed to "complete" one chapter per day, starting from
> 3.3 and send them to the collaboration for general comments and to you for
> the review.
> If the work will proceed as hoped we should be in a better shape by next
> meeting.
>
> All the best
> Annalisa
>
>
> Il 18/04/16 14:46, Daniel Carman ha scritto:
>
> Annalisa,
>>
>> Victor did some further work on the early sections of the proposal this
>> weekend after I sent around
>> my comments. He sent his updates to me for comment and I think they are
>> reasonable. Based on
>> what is now available for the introductory parts of the proposal, I would
>> propose that we freeze the
>> first part of the proposal (Section 1 through Section 3.2) so that I can
>> begin to polish it. That way I
>> don’t have to deal with editing all 70 pages over just a couple of days
>> this weekend. Let me know
>> if you agree and I will begin my work.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Annalisa D'Angelo <
>>> annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Daniel,
>>> Thank you!!
>>> Annalisa
>>>
>>> Il 17/04/16 18:52, Daniel Carman ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Annalisa et al.,
>>>>
>>>> I have just finished reading the available draft of the hybrid baryon
>>>> proposal that was circulated yesterday. I have extensively
>>>> marked up my copy, but I wanted today to share only my “highest" level
>>>> of comments as we work to shape a "presentable”
>>>> version of this proposal to meet the CLAS Collaboration review deadline
>>>> of next Monday.
>>>>
>>>> 1) The proposal as it stands, while still rough and hastily written in
>>>> some areas, is not all that bad. In fact, I am certain that we
>>>> can converge this week on a draft that will represent us well for the
>>>> collaboration review.
>>>>
>>>> 2) One area of weakness that needs to be addressed is that there are no
>>>> references to the extensive existing measurements
>>>> published by CLAS for KY electroproduction. These measurements needs to
>>>> be described in some level of detail and proper
>>>> references included. I can provide this part along with references.
>>>>
>>>> 3) The two existing elements of the CLAS12 N* program (E12-09-003 and
>>>> E12-06-108A) should be described somewhere in
>>>> the introduction in a concise fashion with appropriate references.
>>>>
>>>> 4) The proposal draft will need extensive clean-up with respect to
>>>> grammar, syntax, and style. As I will be responsible for this,
>>>> I would like to get the “frozen” proposal draft (and all files) no
>>>> later than Friday afternoon (Apr. 22) so that I can complete this
>>>> work over the weekend. I will finish my work by Apr. 24 and send the
>>>> draft to the hybrid group for a final chance to look at it
>>>> before submission on Apr. 25.
>>>>
>>>> 5) Section 3. I found the "Old Version" much better written and more
>>>> complete than the paragraphs that follow in the “New
>>>> Version". I propose to keep the text highlighted in blue and to delete
>>>> the text on pp. 12 and 13 starting from "As discussed in
>>>> section 2.2, according ...” until "... channels such as $\phi(1020N$,
>>>> $K^+\Lambda$.".
>>>>
>>>> 6) The first bullet of Section 3.1 makes no sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> 7) Explain the curves on Fig. 7 and Fig. 8.
>>>>
>>>> 8) Section 3.3. At the top of pp. 20 is a bit about "In collaboration
>>>> with the JPAC ..." that does not seem to fit. Lots of words but the
>>>> relevance to the discussion does not seem to fit.
>>>>
>>>> 9) Section 5. The intro paragraph is all about KY and should be moved
>>>> to Section 6.
>>>>
>>>> 10) The acceptance of CLAS12 for eppi+pi- and eK+ppi- can be misleading
>>>> if a proper cut on the momentum for low momentum
>>>> tracks in the Central Detector is not considered. The minimum momentum
>>>> tracks accepted by the CTOF is ~300 MeV. Is there a
>>>> pmin cut in effect?
>>>>
>>>> 11) Section 5.4. The second paragraph here makes no sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> 12) What is the purpose of Fig. 21? It should be better integrated into
>>>> the text and redone with I=-3375A torus current.
>>>>
>>>> 13) Replace Fig. 25 and Fig. 26 with I=+/-3375 A for the torus.
>>>>
>>>> 14) Section 6.3. This business about "Lambda Separation %” and "Sigma0
>>>> Separation %" should be eliminated. For cross section
>>>> observables the hyperons can be separated with a proper line-shape
>>>> analysis such as has been done in our existing CLAS
>>>> publications. So, remove the vertical lines on Figs. 27 and 28 and
>>>> eliminate this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> 15) Section 6.4. Rate estimates should be shown only for final torus
>>>> current choice of -3375 A. All of the other conditions listed only
>>>> serve to distract.
>>>>
>>>> 16) Section 6. Somewhere in the section a crisp argument has to be made
>>>> about value added at running at both 6.6 GeV and 8.8 GeV.
>>>> What are the different kinematic ranges accessible at each beam energy
>>>> and why are these different ranges essential for a successful
>>>> experiment?
>>>>
>>>> 17) Section 7. Nowhere are the different observables that will be
>>>> measured succinctly laid out, especially for K+Y. The plan is to measure
>>>> the differential cross sections and to separate the structure functions
>>>> sigU, sigLT, sigTT, and possible sigLT', as well as to measure the
>>>> induced and transferred hyperon polarization. This needs to be clearly
>>>> discussed and why these observables are important. Also it needs
>>>> to be mentioned that the interference structure functions and
>>>> polarization observables might be even more sensitive to hybrid baryons
>>>> that measurements of differential cross sections alone. Certainly they
>>>> can only add additional sensitivity in the search for new baryon
>>>> states (hybrid or conventional). These observables and their potential
>>>> sensitivities are not really mentioned or discussed at all in the
>>>> proposal.
>>>>
>>>> 18) Section 7.6. The discussion here is a bit muddy and misleading.
>>>> Table 5 shows the minimal value of the A1/2 electrocouplings vs. Q2,
>>>> but under the condition that only the scattered electron is used to
>>>> define the trigger. A tepid statement is made that with a two- or
>>>> three-prong trigger this minimal value improves. I think that some
>>>> additional table must be included on what this improvement is with
>>>> our expected trigger condition for the experiment.
>>>>
>>>> 19) Section 7.7. Replace Tables 7 and 8 with values for I=-3375 A torus
>>>> current.
>>>>
>>>> 20) Replace Figs. 34, 35, 36, 37 with I=-3375 A torus current.
>>>>
>>>> 21) Section 7.8 needs some attention to introduce this approach to
>>>> define our sensitivity to finding hybrids. This includes mentioned the
>>>> use of this chi-squared approach from Bonn-Gatchina. The section should
>>>> also be expanded following Volker' recent suggestion of
>>>> scanning the chi-squared space assuming different quantum numbers for
>>>> the resonance than were used to generate it.
>>>>
>>>> 22) Section 8. The justification of the 30 days at each beam energy
>>>> needs to be made more complete. We need to carefully define our
>>>> statistical requirements based on a certain minimum threshold value for
>>>> the hybrid electrocoupling. The running time needs to be justified
>>>> showing how the minimum electrocoupling value increases as a function
>>>> of reduced beam time.
>>>>
>>>> 23) Page 59. Figs. 39 and 40 are not referenced in the text.
>>>>
>>>> 24) Section 9. The summary should include explicit mention to the two
>>>> existing elements of the CLAS12 N* program, E12-09-003 and
>>>> E12-06-108A, at 11 GeV.
>>>>
>>>> 25) Are Appendices A and B needed for this proposal? This is fairly
>>>> elementary stuff. If deemed to be helpful to the proposal, the formalism
>>>> section on KY should follow what I have developed as the RPR formalism
>>>> is based on what I have defined in our published KY papers from
>>>> CLAS.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if folks have any questions or comments on this.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ***********************************************************************************
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> * Dr. Daniel S. Carman e-mail : carman at jlab.org
>>>> *
>>>> * Staff Scientist office : (757)-269-5586
>>>> *
>>>> * Jefferson Laboratory web:
>>>> http://userweb.jlab.org/~carman *
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> ***********************************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Hybrid_baryons mailing list
>>>> Hybrid_baryons at jlab.org
>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hybrid_baryons
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ================================================
>>> Prof. Annalisa D'Angelo
>>> Dip. Fisica, Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata"
>>> INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Rome Italy
>>> email:annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it
>>> Jefferson Laboratory, Newport News, VA USA
>>> Email: annalisa at jlab.org
>>> Tel: + 39 06 72594562
>>> Fax: + 39 06 2040309
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hybrid_baryons mailing list
>>> Hybrid_baryons at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hybrid_baryons
>>>
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************************************
>> *
>> *
>> * Dr. Daniel S. Carman e-mail : carman at jlab.org
>> *
>> * Staff Scientist office : (757)-269-5586
>> *
>> * Jefferson Laboratory web:
>> http://userweb.jlab.org/~carman *
>> *
>> *
>>
>> ***********************************************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hybrid_baryons mailing list
>> Hybrid_baryons at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hybrid_baryons
>>
>
> --
> ================================================
> Prof. Annalisa D'Angelo
> Dip. Fisica, Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata"
> INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Rome Italy
> email:annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it
> Jefferson Laboratory, Newport News, VA USA
> Email: annalisa at jlab.org
> Tel: + 39 06 72594562
> Fax: + 39 06 2040309
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hybrid_baryons mailing list
> Hybrid_baryons at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/hybrid_baryons
>
--
Prof. Ralf W. Gothe
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Phone: 803 777 9025
Fax: 803 777 3065
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/hybrid_baryons/attachments/20160418/80a4973f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Hybrid_baryons
mailing list