[Primex] meeting

[Gan, Liping]

Hi, all,

I would like to comment on Aron's suggestion:

(1) In abstract, I suggest to mention that our result improved the precision of PDG average more than two and half time. However, we should not emphasize the comparison with the next-to-leading order chiral prediction since our current error bar is too big to draw any definite conclusion. We will have to wait for PrimEx II result.

(2) As for Fig. 1, I would suggest to stick with our collaboration meeting decision. We should discuss with Jose and other theorists. If they have no problem with the Fig.1, we just keep as it is.

Best regards,

Liping




-----Original Message-----
From: primex-bounces at jlab.org [mailto:primex-bounces at jlab.org] On Behalf Of Aron Bernstein
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:08 PM
To: Ashot Gasparian
Cc: primex at jlab.org; Aron Bernstein
Subject: Re: [Primex] meeting

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