[Primex] meeting

[Rory Miskimen]

Hi all,

I think Aron's suggested sentence for the abstract is a good one.  We 
need to state a conclusion,
simply quoting the number isn't sufficient for PRL, or any other journal 
for that matter. 

Putting the QCD sum rule calculation on Fig. 1 doesn't add anything. The 
number can go in the text.
Placing it in the figure implies that the calculation is at same 
theoretical level as the
anomaly and NLO calculations, which it isn't.   Arguing this point isn't 
productive.

Rory





Aron Bernstein wrote:
> Dear Ashot and all,
>
>      Following yesterday’s discussion about the pi0 paper I agree that a strong conclusion should be presented in the abstract. My suggestion is to add a last sentence in the abstract:
>
> This is consistent with the theoretical prediction which is dominated by the QCD axial anomaly plus a 4.8% chiral correction.
>
> I also want to reiterate my suggestion that that the only theoretical lines that should be shown in Fig. 1 are the axial anomaly and the chiral perturbation prediction. This experiment is important because there is a QCD prediction that should be accurately tested. The graph as it is now presented does not make this point. It implies that there is a theoretical uncertainty that in fact does not exist. As it now stands Fig. 1 diminishes the impact of our experiment- this is why I have raised this point so forcefully.
>
> Regards,
> Aron
>
> Aron M. Bernstein
> Professor of Physics
> MIT
> Cambridge, MA. 02139
> office: 26-419
> phone: 617-253-2386
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Primex mailing list
> Primex at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/primex
>