Meeting No. 8

Jan's comments on our draft

Dear Miha,

Greetings from Boston!

Some comments, ordered by line number, not relevance 

Abstract: new experimental method for what? ISR is an older technique,
but using it for this use case is new.

Line 25: radius -> root-mean-square radius
L 31-33: We don't know that yet. Maybe: This discrepancy could not be
explained so far within the standard model or with experimental errors.
L 47: 0.0033 was the lowest edge of my data, I think. Also, you can't
measure a slope, so it always has to be extracted via a fit -- a linear
fit in the best case. Maybe: Due to... c^2), the slope at to Q^2=0 has
to be determined by the extrapolation of a fit to the data.


L57-60: I would say: If you do it right, you get very similar radii. If
not, all bets are off.
It's not so much the normalization, but the possible deviation from the
extrapolated shape, which makes different radii possible. I would add
this here as motivation


Regarding the generator: How do you handle higher orders? Let's say, you
loose 100 MeV. That could be one 100 MeV photon, or one 90 + one 1 MeV
photon etc.. That may be below the current sensitivity, but will hit in
a new version.

L206 f*l*uxgate

L211 Add ","'s around positioned at a fixed setting. What is the final
uncertainty in the relativ luminosity?


L281 What is the theoretical reach? That should be written somewhere,
maybe in the outlook.

Fig2: I don't see a blue line. fields -> bars


L321-342: I think, at 0.0001, 0.1% precision is not sufficent...


L351: What kind of Coulomb-Correction/TPE do you use? That alone should
have a couple of per-mill!



L363ff: I guess this will replaced with a linear fit + second/third
order from the zemach paper?

Add more about a possible follow-up experiment!


Best,
Jan



-- 
Dr. Jan C. Bernauer
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Ave, Room 26-441
Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
Phone:  (617) 253-6580

Draft: