[PRad] Ashot, Re: Before and After PRAD Images (based on your slide 7 and PRAD simulations)

[Arrington, John R.]

I would argue that this specific comparison is dangerous to make. That 
extraction is based on the Mainz data, but it makes several 
approximations to isolate G_E.  I uses a high-Q^2 parametrization of 
Ge/Gm to correct for Gm at very low Q^2, and neglects the uncertainty 
with this correction.  It also neglects the normalization uncertainty 
and the correlated systematics (the 'slope' correction Mainz applies) on 
the data.

Doug can correct me if I'm off on any of the details for this particular 
extraction, but I really don't think that the uncertainties shown on 
these points can be considered representative of the reliability of the 
points.

-John

On 7/28/2016 10:28 PM, gasparan at jlab.org wrote:
>    Dear Douglas,
>
>    This is an interesting plot and very attractive, but at this stage
>   we better to be very careful with any speculations of the PRad data
>   before we discuss them in the collaboration and understand the details.
>
>   Thank you, we will show it after discussions in the Collaboration.
>
>   Ashot
>
>
>> Dear Ashot,
>>
>> For slide 7, I made you a before and after PRAD image based on a PRAD
>> Monte Carlo
>> simulation of expected results and the data you are showing on that slide.
>>
>> I can easily make any changes you like.
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>> Douglas
>>
>>
>> NOTE:  This expected PRad data was simulated using a 0.88 fm radius G_E
>> function.
>> It would be fun to repeat the simulation with one of the 0.84 fm G_E
>> functions.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PRad mailing list
> PRad at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/prad

-- 
John Arrington
Group Leader, Medium Energy Physics Group
Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory
email: johna at anl.gov   office: (630)-252-3619