TODO LIST 000525

THE FOLLOWING POINTS REMAIN TO BE ADDRESSED:

remaining comments from Weinstein:

10) p7 par1: do we want to mention the p3/2 data-theory disagreement at
    pmiss = 50 MeV/c?

o need to be more clear on the theory status. I think
  we need to say very clearly that
  a) we have a one-parameter theory which describes
     the data incredibly well using the optimal bswf,
     optical potential, current operator, etc [where
     optimal is determined from other experiments], and
  b) we have thoroughly studied the dependence of the
     theory on these elements so that when the data are
     no longer described by the theory, we will know
     where the theory needs to be improved.

o have to be clearer about the overlap between relativity
  in the wave function [spinor distortion] and relativity
  in the current operator.  Since neither is an observable
  by itself (we only measure expectation values), the
  proper treatment of relatvity comes from a combination
  of current operator AND wavefunction.

1) p21 'Contamination': Can we calculate the 2s1d contamination accurately
out to 500 MeV/c?  How big an effect is this?  Does it get bigger with
p_miss?

8) p30 tab2: If you have time, add a 2nd column listing the recoil
momentum.  You might be intimately familiar with what kinematics 'L1' is,
but the PAC won't be.

10) p8 fig 5 and p9 fig 6: discuss the 'proj' curves (ie: no negative
energy components)
11) p9 fig 6: point out the differential sensitivity of the p1/2 and p3/2
and of the A_LT and R_LT to cc1 vs cc2.
12) p9 fig 6: Why do the rel1 and rel2 curves stop at 500 MeV/c?
13) fig 5 and 6: Question for Udias: Both EMA and 'proj' have reduced
effects from relativity.  Why does one have bigger wiggles than the full
calculation and theother has smaller wiggles???
16) Appendix 1: the earlier theory study with the bigger plots is easier
to read

The only other major suggestion is that we have a figure
with our expected data including projected uncertainties on a graph of the
cross section, log(abs(R_LT)), and A_LT.  If that is too much work, we at
least need it for A_LT.  That will really show what we plan to do.

The last question is what we should do about the p3/2 point at kin A1
where the S/N is 0.01?  Do we just say that we will either 1) provide a
lousy upper bound or 2) discover that the theory is incorrect and there is
really some cross section there?  We are asking for 8 days to measure at
+/-30 degrees so this is a lot of beamtime.

remaining comments from Kelly:

Most of the time in the 89-003b proposal is used to fill in
and extend the pm range for ALT in the valence region.  Therefore,
the impact of the prooposed measurements would be illustrated best
by adding pseudodata with anticipated error bars to versions of
Figs. 5-8.  I would probably limit pm to not much more than the
proposed range (like Figs. 7-8).  One would then argue that previous
ALT data do not yet strongly exclude EMA-noSV, which misses only the
last point for p1/2 and third point for p3/2, and that a more complete pm
distribution is need to decide the issue.  The question of far in pm
one can push these type of calculations reliably remains difficult.

Note that the calculations labelled "EMA" in Figs. 5-6 are
what I call "EMA-noSV".  Unfortunately, Udias and I sometimes use
different acronyms.  Most of the text refers to my calculations that
include SV as EMA; therefore, either the legend should be changed
or the surrounding text clarified.

What are the
normalization factors used with the Ryckebusch calculations?

Practically no justification is given for extending
the continuum data.  What is new physics is sought that is not
already known from previous data?  Nilanga should be able to show
ALT for the continuum, but I still haven't seen that figure.  Is it
significantly different from the valence states?  Will better
statistics make an important qualitative difference?  In the present
form, this part is likely to be axed.

The discussion of acceptances for the corners may interest
the designers of the experiment, but I think that it is too much
for the proposal.

remaining comments from Gilad:

The main comment that was made is that we need to make clear
that although there are many effects that can affect the
physics (gauges, current operators, bswf, MEC etc.), we
study all of them (Jim is still working on the channel
coupling) and we understand that some of them are not going
to be relevant, and that we have PREDICTIONS for others.
These effects play differently for different p_miss and
observables, so we should be able to have an handle on
them.  I think that the appendix should help to make this
point clear, but we should also emphasize it more in the
body of the proposal.  More than that, the sf extracted
(the one parameter) is consistent with the ones extracted
for the low Q^2 data.  Udias' latest paper and his appendix
have very good descriptions of these relationships.  We may
want to put some of them into the body of the proposal.

remaining general comments:

- get a new copy of Udias' suite for inclusion, if 
  that is still the plan
- a complete and thorough proofread
- fill out all the JLab paperwork associated with 
  submitting the proposal
- how much time is remaining on the books?
- Fig 4: we need to discuss the bound and scattered spinor distortion
  curves or we need to remove them from the plot.