[Pwg] Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: Reader 1 PR12-21-006 review

[Eric Voutier]

De: "Paul E. Reimer" <reimer at anl.gov> 
À: "pwg" <pwg at jlab.org> 
Envoyé: Vendredi 9 Juillet 2021 19:00:55 
Objet: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Pwg] Reader 1 PR12-21-006 review 



Hello Xiaochao, 




I think that for question 4, "Why was this chosen to be first?" is simply that it was not chosen, but that we (you) felt that the ideas were developed enough to submit as a proposal to the PAC. The timing of the submission of the other positron experiments us up to their proponents. 




For question 4, it almost sounds as if there is a misunderstanding of the experiment. I think that he was looking for a way to cross check the relative e + to e - normalizations with some "common" measurement, but clearly DIS can't be the cross check. 




Paul 
-- 
If you receive this e-mail after hours, during a weekend, or on a holiday,
please enjoy your time off and respond during your working hours.

Paul E Reimer               +1-630-252-4037 (Office)
Bldg 203, Physics Division  +1-630-252-3903 (fax)
Argonne National Laboratory +1-630-344-9207 (mobile)
9700 S Cass Ave [ mailto:reimer at anl.gov | reimer at anl.gov ] Lemont, IL  60439 USA.      he/his/him 
On 7/9/21 10:40, Xiaochao Zheng wrote: 



Dear All: 

We received some questions and comments from Steven Dytman on the proposal, please see his email below. (Shufang Su is the 2nd reader and we may receive more questions from her later). 

To the positron team (Joe, Yves, Jay, et al): could you please provide some insights to 1b and 1c? 

To my theory colleagues: any suggestion on 2? (I can probably make a draft sketch on its answer. And I may also expand the last theory update in my other 4-page PDF answer to theory/tech comments). 

I think I can answer 5, but suggestions are welcome. 

I am not sure I understand 3 and 4.. Any ideas? I think since both e- and e+ are secondary beams, we can't use polarized e-, so we can only do "unpolarized DIS measurement" but I can't figure out how to use it as a "cross check". 

I hope to draft a full answer over the weekend and send it back to our readers by Tuesday next week. 

Best regards, 

Xiaochao 


From: Steven Dytman [ mailto:dytman at pitt.edu | <dytman at pitt.edu> ] 
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 11:26 AM 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] PR12-21-006 review 
Xiaochao, 
I hope I have your name correct. Here are my questions on your proposal. 

1. The main issue is the positron beam. 
a. What parameters are most important properties to control, how well? 
b. Proposal emphasizes importance of *equality* of beam energies. 
Is this a strong limitation on the lab? TAC report also mentions this. 
What if the consistency was 50% worse than you request? What is your 
estimate of how much the systematic errors would increase? 
c. What is earliest time you plan to have a suitable e+ beam for 
your experiment? 
d. What is the maximum time separation between e+ and e- beam 
running you seek? 

2. Since DIS has no sharp signal, backgrounds must be calculated (high 
twist, radiative corrections seem most difficult). How will those be 
controlled? 

3. Will you do unpolarized or single polarized DIS measurements as a 
cross-check? 

4. How does this relate to other positron experiments? Why was this 
chosen to be first? 

5. What are the differences between your proposal and the existing CERN 
measurement? I think that comes from the fact that their beam was 
polarized and yours will be unpolarized. 

regards, 
Steve 




_______________________________________________
Pwg mailing list [ mailto:Pwg at jlab.org | Pwg at jlab.org ] [ https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg | https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/pwg ] 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pwg/attachments/20210710/d7200f9b/attachment.html>