Difference between revisions of "March 22nd, 2019"
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
** May 27: Initiate vote for proposal endorsement (2 weeks for vote) | ** May 27: Initiate vote for proposal endorsement (2 weeks for vote) | ||
** June 10: PAC47 proposal deadline | ** June 10: PAC47 proposal deadline | ||
+ | * For the April 8th deadline we plan to address the comments from the previous (PAC46) report: | ||
+ | ** Effects of systematic uncertainties on our results | ||
+ | ** Lack of awareness of competition in the international community, and impact this has on scheduling | ||
+ | ** The proponents should describe the physics impact (for example, how will new baryon states test lattice QCD?), including effects of systematic errors on partial wave analyses. | ||
+ | ** Demonstrate that systematic errors are under control, given the very small systematic errors expected, including energy resolution and acceptance at low -t. | ||
- New calculations for KLP-->K+Xi0 | - New calculations for KLP-->K+Xi0 |
Latest revision as of 07:34, 25 March 2019
Attended: Moskov, Justin, Mikhail, Sean, Jim, and Igor
Tentative agenda:
- Revision of the PAC46 proposal to resubmit it for PAC47
- GlueX Collaboration’s endorsement. There is an endorsement letter signed by key people of experimental groups of the GlueX Collaboration [1]
- Definition of GlueX Collaboration endorsement from bylaws
- Timeline for PAC47 approval within GlueX
- April 1: Proposal proponents request an internal review for endorsement
- April 8: Draft proposal submitted to internal review committee with charge from CB
- May 15: Internal review committee responds to charge, then CB and EG decide if proposal will be put up for a vote (at Collaboration Meeting)
- May 27: Initiate vote for proposal endorsement (2 weeks for vote)
- June 10: PAC47 proposal deadline
- For the April 8th deadline we plan to address the comments from the previous (PAC46) report:
- Effects of systematic uncertainties on our results
- Lack of awareness of competition in the international community, and impact this has on scheduling
- The proponents should describe the physics impact (for example, how will new baryon states test lattice QCD?), including effects of systematic errors on partial wave analyses.
- Demonstrate that systematic errors are under control, given the very small systematic errors expected, including energy resolution and acceptance at low -t.
- New calculations for KLP-->K+Xi0
- News for the flux monitor
- News for the Be-production target
- News for CPS
- News for the recent GlueX run with the Be-target
- Schedule for KLF meetings
The total cross section for KLp-->K+Xi0 and impact for Sigma(2030)7/2+ [2] and Sigma(1950)5/2-[3]. Differential cross section at W = 1940 MeV to compare 100 and 20 day run period [4]. Similar for pol measurements [5].
Sigma(1920)5/2- new
100d M = 1.923+-0.010+-0.010 GeV G = 0.321+-0.010+-0.010 GeV
20d M = 1.977+-0.021+-0.025 GeV G = 0.327+-0.025+-0.025 GeV
PDG2018 M = 1.775+-0.005 GeV G = 0.120+-0.015 GeV
LQCD M = 1.212 GeV
M = 1.487 GeV M = 1.590 GeV M = 1.663 GeV
Sigma(2030)7/2+ ****
100d M = 1.930+-0.020+-0.030 GeV G = 0.400+-0.040 GeV
20d M = 1.981+-0.030+-0.030 GeV G = 0.350+-0.080 GeV
PDG2018 M = 2.030+-0.008 GeV G = 0.180+-0.025 GeV
LQCD M = 1.606 GeV
M = 1.620 GeV M = 1.670 GeV M = 1.678 GeV
LQCD: R. G. Edwards et al. [Hadron Spectrum Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 5, 054506 (2013)