<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Katherine Mesick</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kamyers@jlab.org">kamyers@jlab.org</a>></span><br>Date: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:34 AM<br>Subject: Re: [Qweak_bnssa_elastic_ep_authors] Final draft of the elastic ep transverse paper - Comments due by October 17th, 2014<br>To: <a href="mailto:buddhini@jlab.org">buddhini@jlab.org</a><br><br><br>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Buddhini,<br>
<br>
Overall it is much better. There is still one major issue I have
with the way one of the sentences is written. Otherwise this is
mostly minor comments and a few suggestions for rephrasing.<br>
<br>
I will sort of be available if you have a question about anything; I
am going to be on vacation for the next week.<br>
<br>
Katherine<br>
<br>
line 53-56:<br>
A light suggestion: change to "The lepton helicity flip amplitudes
are important in the theoretical calculation of the two-photon
exchange corrections..."<br>
<br>
More firm suggestions: <br>
"reduce the magnitude" -> "reduce the calculated magnitude"
(trying to stress that this is a calculation)<br>
"corrections on" -> "corrections for"<br>
"aiming to understand" -> "aimed at understanding"<br>
<br>
line 57, line 61:<br>
electron-proton<br>
<br>
line 73:<br>
"corrections on" -> "corrections for"<br>
<br>
line 78:<br>
"have been" -> "has been"<br>
"at the high Q^2" -> "in the high Q^2"<br>
<br>
line 79:<br>
dominant -> large?<br>
<br>
line 79:<br>
capitalize P in -Polarization (or remove capital P in line 76)<br>
<br>
line 84:<br>
Ref 15 (Bernauer) is not a global fit. They only fit their data.<br>
<br>
line 88:<br>
Ref 18 - Please update this reference to CODATA 2010!!! (published
in 2012)<br>
<br>
line 88:<br>
"Hydrogen lamb shift" -> "hydrogen Lamb shift"<br>
<br>
line 89:<br>
move ref 19 to end of line and cite together [19,20]<br>
<br>
line 90-92:<br>
"One correction..." I still do not agree with this line, it is
misleading. It is a known correction in extracting the radius from
the energy level measurement, but it DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR ANY OF THE
DISCREPANCY. It would be better to say "One correction in
extracting the radius from muonic hydrogen is a TPE term that
depends on the proton polarizability. Although this is a relatively
small correction, its size is $\approx$11\% of the discrepancy and
it has the largest theoretical uncertainty associated with .... "<br>
<br>
also "corrections on muonic hydrogen" -> "corrections for muonic
hydrogen"<br>
<br>
line 98:<br>
It is enough to say that the TPE calculations depend on the helicity
flip amplitude. I think it's too much detail for this paper so
remove the sentence "Without account..."<br>
<br>
I'd also suggest removing the sentence "The effect on MUSE TPE
corrections..." and maybe rephrasing the next sentence "The only
way to improve model predictions is through benchmarking
experimental observables against..."<br>
<br>
line 137:<br>
from from<br>
<br>
line 145:<br>
8 -> eight<br>
<br>
line 149:<br>
are you using ^0 or ^{\circ}?<br>
<br>
line 167:<br>
parity-violating<br>
<br>
line 206:<br>
electron-proton<br>
<br>
line 207:<br>
7.9$^{\circ}$<br>
<br>
line 221-222:<br>
"However, _the_ blah&blah and blah _models consider_..."<br>
<br>
line 223:<br>
where as B. -> whereas the B.<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br clear="all"></div></div></div></div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="georgia, serif">-------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Buddhini Waidyawansa<br></font>Postdoctoral Fellow<br>
C122,<br><div><font face="georgia, serif">12000 Jefferson Ave,</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif">Newport News, VA 23602.</font></div><div><font face="georgia, serif">TP 757-912-0410</font></div></div></div>
</div>