Comments follow in the order in which they were received.
1. From Sheldon Stone.
Hi
You guys did a great job. I have a few minor
comments:
sheldon
n Charm Physics at
Charm Factory section
line 674 & 680
Ds(4110) should be $\psi(4110)$
line 676 "BES has
an almost pure source of D mesons with …"
This is not really
true. There are backgrounds that are reasonably large and
decay mode dependent. I suggest changing "almost pure" to
"large and relatively clean"
or something like
that.
Line 681 - CLEO
studied Ds mesons also at the psi(4140) which are also
quantum correlated. I actually don't understand why the Ds
is singled out for "major advance" and the D0 and D+ are
not. Perhaps on line 675 you add after psi(3770) "and
a smaller sample on the $\psi(4110)$." Then keep the
discussion on D and Ds in parallel. You also could
mention that CLEO previously studied Ds.
LHCb now intends to
run this year at a luminosity of 4.0 x 10^{32}, up from 3.5
2. From Andreas Kronfeld
Hi Jack, Ritchie, Joel, and
Zoltan,
Here are some typos I noticed. Cheers,
Andreas
70 Converseley -> Conversely
Table 1-2: NA61 -> NA62
193 mesaured -> measured
441 Innovations in the last few
years, in part resulting in linear collider studies ...
"in" -> "from"
3. From Monika Blanke
Hi all,
Thanks a lot for your effort, overall I think the draft is very
good. Here's a few comments I have - clearly all of them are
meant to be merely suggestive (and I am not a native speaker, so
language stuff might simply be wrong):
Overall I feel that kaon physics is a bit underrepresented in
the present version. The K theory section completely lacks the
model-discriminating power of studying various rare K decays in
a correlated manner. Also the complementarity of K and B physics
should in my opinion be stressed more.
The K experiments get only as much space as the two super flavor
factories. While I agree that there are many more channels to
measure in the B system and thus more space is needed to
describe the program, the present version might give the
impression that the K physics program is kind of secondary.
Line 2 and 34: favor physcis ---> flavor physics
Line 42, 43: "theoretical uncertainties in calculating direct CP
violation in K decay" - it should be made clear that this
comment applies only to the case of epsilon', but not to e.g.
the theoretically very clean K_L -> pi^0 nu nu
Fig. 1-1 and corresponding statements in the text: I am somewhat
surprised about the conclusion that the NP contribution in B_d
mixing may still be comparable to the SM one. What's the lattice
input that has been used here?
Line 124, 125: The sentence refers to epsilon', although Table
1-1lists only the constraints on Delta F = 2 operators.
Line 128, 129: "While Delta m_K and epsilon_K..." - I wouldn't
mention those two in the same breath, as epsilon_K is much
cleaner due to the absence of long-distance contributions.
Line 195: addition ---> additional
Line 209: that it a SUSY contribution ---> that a SUSY
contribution
Line 229-231: "For example..." - this sentence strictly speaking
applies only to gluino and neutralino contributions
Line 384: not now known ---> not yet known
Line 403: "making a possible a measurement" - too many "a"
Line 409: complimentary ---> complementary
Line 486: existance ---> existence
Line 520: cited ---> sited
Line 597-599: "contradict" is way too strong here - the recent
Tevatron data agree with the SM prediction at about 1sigma. Also
ref. [58] needs to be fixed.
Line 628: ability handle ---> ability to handle
Line 658: could come be ---> could be
Line 721: in the discriminating ---> in discriminating
Line 732: quantum number ---> quantum numbers
Best,
Monika
4. From Gil Paz
Dear All,
I have read through the draft and it is well written. I have a
few minor comments that I wanted to share with you.
Lines 149-152: You can add that the reduction of the error on
|Vcb| will have a very large impact on these observables. You
should also cite the papers by Brod et. al. arXiv:
1108.2036 and arXiv:1009.0947, as was discussed in a previous
communication.
Lines 473-482: Please cite arXiv:1012.3167. The fact that
the resolved photon contribution vanish for A_{CP}( B->
X_{s+d} \gamma) is crucial for the utility of this measurement.
In the case of A_{CP}( B-> X_{s} \gamma), often cited
as one of the important measurements of the super B
factories, the resolved photon contributions degrade the
theoretical prediction.
Lines 653-655: The references to KEK-B and SuperB should appear
much earlier in the draft. Also, since they are discussed in an
earlier section, there no need to reintroduce them.
Lines 760-765: I would omit the line "This would make
sense if the physics opportunities provided by these experiments
were second class." It sounds as an insult to our colleagues
from Asia and Europe. Also, the last sentence is not clear. I
would add, "namely CERN" and "namely LHCb" and "namely NA62" in
the appropriate places. In general it seems to me that the
entire paragraph should be rewritten.
Line 796: I would suggest to add a closing sentence to the
report.
Sincerely,
Gil Paz
---
Dear All,
One comment I forgot to mention is the synergy with other
working groups such as ``Hidden Sector Photons, Axions, and
WISPS" Working Group. See for example Bertrand Echenard's
talk
https://twindico.hep.anl.gov/indico/getFile.py/access?contribId=18&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=751
Gil
5. From Ruth Van de Water
Dear Jack, Joel, Ritchie, and
Zoltan,
Thank you all for your hard work on this document. You've
done a great job synthesizing a lot of information and have
summarized the physics motivations, experimental opportunities,
and recommendations of the working group clearly. Here are
a few suggestions that I think will improve the document even
further.
1) I find the sentence in line 106 "Thus, deviations from
the SM of any size may occur below the current bounds, ..." a
bit awkward and confusing, although I think I know what you
intend. Maybe you could say something like "Sizeable
deviations from the SM, however, are still allowed by the
current bounds, and in a large class of models we expect
observable effects."
2) You emphasize quite well the important point that some
measurements are limited by theoretical uncertainties, and that
it's important to understand the SM uncertainties and reduce
them where needed (and where possible). I think that this
point would be made even more sharply if the "SM Theory" columns
in Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 included uncertainties.
Otherwise you cannot really make a meaningful comparison.
3) I agree with your bullet-point recommendations in
section 1.4 wholeheartedly. However, I believe that this
section could be made more effective if the motivations were
made with a more positive spin. Clearly we in the
flavor-physics community wish that the US hadn't largely
abandoned the domestic experimental flavor-physics program, but
discussing it's demise in great detail is probably too
negative. Further, I don't think that the fact that the
only flavor-physics experiments are in Asia or Europe is a good
argument for building one here. If we thought that the
experiments in Asia or Europe were doing the best job possible
then we would be fine with simply joining these experiments to
pursue the physics. The point is that we can do *better*
experiments in the US by exploiting existing expertise and
experimental facilities such as the proton accelerator complex
at Fermilab. ORKA is a great example; it will
measure the branching fraction to a higher precision than
NA62. So I think that we need to emphasize the following
points:
-- The B-factories, CLEO, Fermilab
and BNL kaon experiments, etc. have given us a wealth of
expertise in flavor physics in the US.
-- There is a vibrant flavor-physics
community in the US that is interested in reviving domestic
heavy-flavor experiments.
-- There are great physics
opportunities where we can do a better job than experiments
running or proposed in Asia and Europe, for relatively low cost,
and we should take advantage of them.
Oh, and I also found a minor typo on line 42: 1960-s
--> 1960s
I hope that you find these comments helpful. Please let me
know if you need clarifications or other information from me.
Cheers,
Ruth
6. From Bob Tschirhart
Colleagues,
A few comments on the
posted IFW heavy quark draft:
Line 11: Typo, favor
-> Flavor
Line 141:
Would suggest "slightly larger irreducible
theory error" here to distinguish from the theory error
due to CKM parameters. When one considers the full
theoretical error with parameters, in fact the charged mode
will have a smaller theoretical fractional error than the
neutral mode.
Line 147:
“uncertainty” -> experimental
uncertainty
Line 147:
Typo, double occurrence of the
charged mode BR.
Line 391:
The total power at rare decay campus in
3000 kW, kaons can reasonably expect half of this. So
please change to 1500 kW.
Cheers, Bob Tschirhart
7. From Andreas Kronfeld, Ruth
Van de Water, Norman Christ, Paul Mackenzie, Stephen Sharpe, and
Robert Sugar
Dear Jack, Ritchie, Joel, and
Zoltan,
Thank you for excellent work drafting this Report of the Heavy
Quarks Working Group. You have done a great job
synthesizing a lot of information in a clear and well-written
manner. We have some suggestions, however, for how to
improve the presentation of the current state of lattice QCD and
its role in the future heavy-flavor intensity frontier program.
Your e-mail stated "Some work on the references is still
needed." Since we are more familiar with the literature on
lattice QCD, we are providing (at the end of this e-mail)
specific suggestions. We have tried to limit ourselves to
calculations with 2+1 sea quarks, and only quote the most recent
effort of any given collaboration. One of the attached
files has the BibTeX code for these papers.
We believe that computing for lattice QCD should be included
among the future facilities in Sec. 1.4. For example, one of the
bullets could/should read:
"
• Lattice QCD is an essential
component of the heavy-flavor intensity frontier program,
without which many measurements would make significantly less
impact. The U.S. should continue its excellent support of
lattice-QCD computer resources, support which has propelled U.S.
leadership in a broad program of lattice-QCD calculations
critical to flavor physics.
"
There are several places in which the description of lattice QCD
could be made more accurate and be brought up to date.
Lines 257-259 strike us as weak and superficial. Here is a
suggested replacement for the first two paragraphs of Sec.
1.2.4:
"
Because heavy quarks are colored particles, the heavy-quark
experimental program has to be paralleled with theoretical
research in QCD. One successful avenue is to use effective
field theories to separate the high scales of the $b$-quark mass
and electroweak physics, as in heavy-quark effective theory
(HQET) and soft-collinear effective theory (SCET). For
kaons, it is useful to examine the restrictions of
Goldstone-boson physics with chiral perturbation theory
(ChPT). The effective field theories provide relations
between different measurable quantities, so that a suite of
measurements can be used to understand both QCD and electroweak
physics.
In many cases it is necessary to calculate the hadronic matrix
element explicitly, and here the tool of choice is lattice gauge
theory. The last several years have witnessed remarkable
advances in these calculations. A wide variety of
quantities agree well with experiment within a few per
cent~\cite{Davies:2003ik}, including the baryon
spectrum~\cite{Durr:2008zz}. Several quantities in flavor
physics were predicted and later confirmed by experiment,
including charmed semileptonic form factors~\cite{Aubin:2004ej},
the mass of the $B_c$ meson~\cite{Allison:2004be}, and $D$ and
$D_s$ decay constants~\cite{Aubin:2005ar,Follana:2007uv}.
Lattice-QCD calculations in the kaon sector are now used, with
the $K_{\ell2}$ and $K_{\ell3}$ branching ratios, to determine
$|V_{us}|$~\cite{Follana:2007uv,Lubicz:2009ht,Boyle:2010bh}.
In fact, there are now two or more realistic three-flavor
lattice-QCD calculations of all hadronic weak matrix elements
needed for the standard global CKM unitarity triangle fit, and
averages of these quantities are provided in
Refs.~\cite{Laiho:2009eu,Colangelo:2010et}. Moreover, the
lattice-QCD community has a good track record of providing
reliable forecasts of their uncertainties. A set of such
forecasts was prepared for this workshop and is reproduced in
Table~\ref{tab:error}.
The techniques used to improve our understanding of QCD for
flavor physics often find further application in other parts of
particle physics. For example, SCET is being applied to
jet physics to aid discoveries at the LHC [refs], and lattice
QCD is being applied to the matrix elements needed in
dark-matter detection~\cite{Giedt:2009mr}.
"
The table would be that from the document that USQCD
submitted. The source for the table is attached.
With this change, it would be better to change wording in a
sentence on lines 279-280, to distinguish "predict" from
"reproduce":
"
Lattice QCD calculations have reproduced the spectrum of
charmonium and bottomonium
states~\cite{Follana:2006rc,Meinel:2009rd,Burch:2009az,Mohler:2011ke,Dowdall:2011wh}
and predicted the glueball
spectrum~\cite{Sexton:1995kd,Morningstar:1999rf}.
"
Comment on lines 202-206: The discussion of the B -> tau nu
tension assumes a value for |V_{ub}| and, as you know, there is
tension in the inclusive and exclusive methods. The (most
recent) lattice-QCD papers on the exclusive form factor, used by
both BaBar and Belle, are
\cite{Dalgic:2006dt,Bailey:2008wp}. Implications of the
three ways to "determine" |V_{ub}| have been explored by
Crivellin \cite{Crivellin:2009sd} and by Blanke et alia
\cite{Blanke:2011ry}.
Lines 683-686: In our opinion, the CLEO-c program was indeed
useful to persuade nonexperts that lattice QCD practitioners had
their methods under control. This is, in part, because
most of the internal testing is too technical. At present,
however, the successful predictions (see above) and recognition
that almost all lattice-QCD flavor phenomenology has full error
budgets warrant a rephrasing:
"
BES~III should excel in measuring $D$ and $D_s$ leptonic
branching fractions and many form factors determined from
semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. These can be
combined with corresponding lattice-QCD calculations to yield
direct determinations of $|V_{cd}|$ and $|V_{cs}|$ (without
assuming CKM unitarity). This is analogous to the B
system, where lattice QCD and experiment are combined to extract
CKM matrix elements from measurements of decays, CP violation,
and mixing.
"
Lines 128-131: We think the the last two sentences of the
first paragraph of Sec. 1.2.1 could be improved physics-wise by
replacing "While $\Delta m_K$ and $\epsilon_K$ ... substantial
new physics contribution." with
"
As shown in Table 1-1, the present rough estimate of $\Delta
m_K$ provides a significant bound on FCNC. This bound will
become more stringent as lattice-QCD calculations of this
quantity become available. As discussed below,
$\epsilon_K$ is now very accurately determined theoretically,
providing the most stringent constraints in Table 1-1. At
present the hadronic uncertainties in
the SM calculation of $\epsilon'$ are large because two terms of
opposite sign and comparable magnitude contribute.
Progress in lattice QCD should make $\epsilon'$ tractable in the
future, judging from current progress on the $\Delta I=3/2$ and
$1/2$ amplitudes~\cite{Blum:2011pu,Blum:2011ng}. At
present, however, we can neither rule out, nor prove, that it
receives a substantial new physics contribution.
"
We hope you find these suggestions easy to implement.
Thanks again for your leadership in crafting this important
document. Cheers,
Andreas Kronfeld
Ruth Van de Water
Norman Christ
Paul Mackenzie
Stephen Sharpe
Robert Sugar
Suggested additional references on lattice QCD:
151-152: extend this sentence to note that improved theory is
needed
154 has improved in the last decade
remarkably~\cite{Aubin:2009jh,Aoki:2010pe,Durr:2011ap,Bae:2011ff},
154 ..., and it is hoped that
$\epsilon'$ might also become tractable in the future ->
..., and significant progress is
being made on $K\to\pi\pi$ amplitudes needed for $\epsilon'$.
155 A lattice QCD determination of
the charm loop contribution to $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ would
also be worth pursuing~\cite{Isidori:2005tv}.
156 And, of course, lattice QCD is
important for determining $|V_{cb}|$ from semileptonic $B$
decays~\cite{Bernard:2008dn,Qiu:2011ur}.
171 improve the determination of
$|V_{ub}|$, using both continuum methods [refs] and lattice
QCD~\cite{Dalgic:2006dt,Bailey:2008wp}
204 meson decay
constant~\cite{Gamiz:2009ku,McNeile:2011ng,Bazavov:2011aa}.
280
states~\cite{Follana:2006rc,Meinel:2009rd,Burch:2009az,Mohler:2011ke,Dowdall:2011wh}
and the glueball
spectrum~\cite{Sexton:1995kd,Morningstar:1999rf}.
8. From Michele Papucci
11: favor -> flavor
14: why a "coupling" should have an arrow like in t -> s ?
34: why is the hierarchy problem just a puzzle?
34: favor -> flavor
1st paragraph is kind of alternating back and forth between
saying flavor probes high mass scale and reveals features of TeV
NP. Is it intentional? Maybe reordering sentences saying one and
then the other, without coming back on the first afterwards?
42: 1960-s or 1960's ?
48: to solve the fine tuning problem -> stabilize the
electroweak scale?
73: very special flavor structures -> very special flavor
structures, e.g. possibly sharing some of the symmetries shaping
the SM yukawa interactions
(or may be inserted it after the following sentence regarding
the flavor puzzle)
76: we would like to probe ? ...sounds like the option is in our
hands… I'd say either drop it or split the sentence and
reiterate that therefore flavor+LHC may provide a way to probe
(some of) its features
85-86, 89-90: are these parenthetic comments necessary in this
kind of report? (regarding the level of technicality)
around 100: maybe already put a sentence like if TeV scale NP
contributions enjoys (part of) the flavor symmetries of the SM
and comes into play at second order (or loop level) the "typical
expected size" would be (200GeV/fewTeV)^2~few%, which is not
probed yet (just to give a minimal target…)
145: maybe say explicitly why you do care about canceling
(Alambda^2)^4?
147: one is charged and the other is neutral mode
149: adding back the lambda^2 so it's really Vcb?
after 159: maybe already put a sentence regarding the value of
Kaon physics together with charm because of s<->c ?
206: why only experiment is needed to clarify the situation? no
further lattice study or did I miss that everybody agrees now
it's not lattice?
209: fix the sentence.
237-238: say where the FCNCs to protect were (Kaons)? (related
to comment to line 159)
251-255: what about being less generic? Otherwise charm seems a
little bit rushed…
Overall looks good. Sorry if I don't have more to comment right
now…
Cheers
M
9. From Bob Tschirhart
Colleagues,
I very much
appreciate your hard work in putting this draft
together. It is really an impressive document.
Below is a suggested modification to the
concluding text that has a bit more positive spin while
attempting to capture the history of successes and
challenges.
Cheers,
Bob Tschirhart
“Before looking forward, it makes
sense to review some history. After the SSC was cancelled in
1993, it became clear that the Energy Frontier was going to
shift from the Fermilab Tevatron to the LHC at CERN. At that
time, the U.S. was the leader on quark flavor-physics
experiments at the Intensity Frontier. B-physics was still
dominated by the CLEO experiment. The most sensitive rare K
decay experiments performed to date were then underway
at the Brookhaven AGS. A few years later, the asymmetric e+e-
B-factories were built at SLAC and KEK, increasing the size of
B meson datasets by two orders of magnitude and also opening
the door to measurements of time-dependent CP
asymmetries. As LHC construction continued, a number of
aggressive quark-flavor initiatives were put forward in the
U.S. These included the BTeV proposal which would have used
the Tevatron for B-physics, the CKM proposal which would have
made the first high statistics measurement of K+ ->
pi+nunubar using the Fermilab Main Injector, and the RSVP
proposal which included an experiment (KOPIO) to measure KL
-> pi0nunbar at the Brookhaven AGS. After being toyed with
for years, all of these initiative were ultimately terminated.
Also, as accelerator breakthroughs capable of increasing
B-factory luminosity by more than another order of magnitude
were made, the opportunity to upgrade the PEP-II B-factory at
SLAC was not pursued; subsequently, the proponents coalesced
around what is now the Italian super-flavor factory planned to
be built at the new Cabbibo lab near Rome.
Today the only kaon experiments running or
under construction are in Asia or Europe. The only B-physics
experiments running or under construction are in Asia or
Europe. The only charm experiments running or under
construction are in Asia or Europe. This would make sense if
the physics opportunities provided by these experiments were
second class. However, that is not the case. Indeed, the
laboratory that owns the Energy Frontier is also the home of a
running B-physics experiment, which has a clear upgrade path,
and a rare K decay experiment which is under
construction. Looking forward, it is clear in
spite of this history that there is strong interest and a
potentially substantial community in the U.S. for an Intensity
Frontier flavor-physics program. Indeed, U.S. physicists are
players in almost all the offshore experiments, but only small
players. Two conclusions are obvious: U.S. participation in
offshore Intensity Frontier experiments should be supported,
and steps should be taken to recapture the lead that the U.S.
had at the quark-
flavor Intensity Frontier until recently.
The basic motivation for this program can
be described very simply. If the LHC observes new high-mass
states, it will be necessary to distinguish between models
proposed to explain them. This will require tighter
constraints from the flavor sector, which can come from more
precise experiments using strange, charm, and bottom quark
systems. If the LHC does not make such discoveries, then the
ability of precision flavor-physics experiments to probe mass
scales far above LHC, through virtual effects, is the best
hope to see signals that may point toward the next energy
scale to explore. Therefore, a healthy U.S. particle physics
program must include a vigorous
flavor-physics component.”
Would suggest modifying the text to be:
Before looking
forward, it makes sense to review some history. In
the 1990s the U.S. was the leader on both the energy frontier
and in quark flavor-physics experiments at the
Intensity Frontier. B-physics was still dominated
by the CLEO experiment in the early 1990s. The
most sensitive rare K decay experiments performed to
date were then underway at the Brookhaven AGS.
Later in the decade the asymmetric e+e-
B-factories were built at SLAC and KEK, increasing the size of
B meson datasets by two orders of magnitude and also
opening the door to measurements of time-dependent CP
asymmetries. This research program produced
world-leading results which explicitly contributed to the 2008
Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on these
successes a number of new aggressive quark-flavor initiatives
were put forward in the U.S. at the turn of the new
millennium. These included the BTeV proposal which
would have used the Tevatron for B-physics, the CKM
proposal which would have made the first high statistics
measurement of K+ -> pi+nunubar using the Fermilab Main
Injector, and the RSVP proposal which included an experiment
(KOPIO) to measure KL -> pi0nunbar at the Brookhaven AGS.
After being considered in the context of flat
budgets and the pursuit of a fast-start strategy for the
International Linear Collider, all of these initiatives
were ultimately terminated. Also, as accelerator
breakthroughs capable of increasing B-factory luminosity by
more than another order of magnitude were made, the
opportunity to upgrade the PEP-II B-factory at SLAC was also
not pursued; subsequently, the proponents coalesced
around what is now the Italian super-flavor factory planned to
be built at the new Cabbibo lab near Rome.
Today the only
kaon experiments running or under construction are in Asia or
Europe. The only B-physics experiments running or under
construction are in Asia or Europe. The only charm experiments
running or under construction are in Asia or Europe.
This would make sense as a US strategy if there were no
opportunities with domestic facilities or if the physics
promise did not motivate allocation of precious U.S.
resources. However, this is clearly not the
case. Indeed, the laboratory that now owns the
Energy Frontier is also the home of a running B-physics
experiment, which has a clear upgrade path, and a rare K decay
experiment which is under construction. Looking
forward, based on the exciting physics opportunities
both in the U.S. and offshore, there is strong interest
and a potentially substantial community in the U.S. for an
Intensity Frontier flavor-physics program. Indeed,
U.S. physicists are players in almost all the offshore
experiments, but only small players. Two conclusions are
obvious: U.S. participation in offshore Intensity Frontier
experiments should be supported, and steps should be taken to
recapture the lead that the U.S. had at the quark- flavor
Intensity Frontier until recently.
The basic motivation for this
program can be described very simply. If the LHC observes new
high-mass states, it will be necessary to distinguish between
models proposed to explain them. This will require tighter
constraints from the flavor sector, which can come from more
precise experiments using strange, charm, and bottom quark
systems. If the LHC does not make such discoveries, then the
ability of precision flavor-physics experiments to probe mass
scales far above LHC, through virtual effects, is the best hope
to see signals that may point toward the next energy scale to
explore. Therefore, a healthy U.S. particle physics program
must include a vigorous flavor-physics component.
10. From Jure Zupan
Dear editors,
please find below my comments (mostly typos that I noticed).
thank you for your hard work
regards
Jure
l.11 favor-> flavor
l.26 lead -> led
Also - maybe the whole sentence is too complicated - could it
be simplified?
l.29 B_H,L notation is a bit of a jargon, maybe? Will it be
understandable to
an outsider or does it require an explanation?
l.34 favor -> flavor
l. 39 "very significantly" - is this good English?
l. 113 by of order 100 -> by a factor of order 100 (or can
increase 100-fold)
l. 115 teach us if -> teach us, if
l. 122 earlier anticipated -> initially anticipated ?
l. 195 is an -> is in
l. 209 it a SUSY contribution is -> potential SUSY
contribution is
l. 220 "another working group" -> lepton flavor violation
working group (is this the name?)
l.273 previously unobserved -> previously unobserved but
anticipated states predicted from simple quark model picture
l.351 will used -> will use
l.357 with less beam -> with smaller beam power
l. 384 not now known -> not known at present
l. 386 (at the SM level) -> (with the branching ratio at the
SM level)
l.403 making a possible -> making possible
l. 410 bean -> beam
l. 495 B^+->B^0
l. 520 cited -> situated
l.550 why is D0 in brackets?
l. 583 LHCB -> LHCb
l.586 tht -> that
l.612 its the -> its
l.613 mught -> might
l. 628 ability handle -> ability to handle
l. 697 will between -> will be between
l. 780 physic -> physics
11. From Jon Rosner
Here are comments on the January
19 version of "Report of the Heavy Quarks Working Group."
I would hope all the other working groups could do as
well. I have my eye on the organizers of each working
group as possible organizers for Snowmass 2013.
L11: "favor" => "flavor"
L25: "strangeness-changing"
L26: "led to the prediction"
L31: "flavor-changing"
L33: "percent level"
L34: "flavor"
L37: "paradigm-changing"
L42: "1960s"
L50: Use parallel syntax. Suggest "and because of
additional"
L56: "information on the next energy scale to explore"
L59: delete "what"
Fig. 1.1: A sentence defining $h_d$ and $\sigma_d$ would
be helpful.
I realize they are defined later (L92). Mention that any
conclusive
evidence for nonzero $h_d$ would point to new physics.
L75: "box diagrams"
L87: "second-order"
L91: "parametrized" (APS usage)
L95: "[9,10]"
L125: delete commas after "difference", before "and", and
after "quantitites
L128: A physics comment: $\Delta m_K$ is not purely
a short-distance
effect. All one can demand is that the new physics
constributions do
not overwhelm the (poorly understood) strong interaction
contributions.
L130: "future;"
L137: delete comma before "which determines"
L138: "parametrizes"
L146: "centered at a certain value of $\pm|\bar \eta|$
with width
$2 \Delta \bar \eta$/"
L147: I think you mean ${\cal B}(K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar
\nu)$ here
L178: "several decay modes"
L186: give a reference for the LHCb result
L202: Text should read: "of the $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$ rate,
which ..."
Give references for the SM prediction and for the average of the
measurements. They can be found, for example, in
arXiv:1201.2401.
L209: "noticed that a SUSY contribution"
L210: "many years of super-$B$-factory ..."
L225: suggest "... flavor symmetry, for example $a_{K^0
\pi^0}$
[give reference here to M. Gronau, PL B 627, 82 (2005)], will
help ..."
L234: Need HFAG reference in text after "0.01
level". It should be
moved in the references from [42] to just after the present
[21].
L235-240: These references (which will be [23]-[25]) need
to be put in correct order.
P8, Fig. 1-2 caption, L2: will now be "(From Ref.\ [22].)"
L260: "model-independent"
L278: "exotic quantum numbers, e.g., isospins,
hypercharges, or
values of $J^{PC}$ that cannot ..."
P9, Table 1.2: could use errors on "SM theory"
numbers. Prefer headers
to be capitalized first word only: "SM theory", "Current
expt.",
"Future experiments"
A comment on Table 1.2: Could use some augmentation of the
case for
Project X. The two SD SM predictions don't mention the LD
contributions
or their expected errors. One will not be able to get
anywhere near the
SM transverse muon polarization.
L324: "depending (how?) on the LHC schedule."
Details?
L336-7: "efficiencies ... are" or "efficiency ... is"
L391: Is it really 3000 kW? I have seen the figure
2.3 MW. Might be
useful to quote the expected power at each stage. Was
Table 1.3 based
on 3 MW?
L396: "A challenge for" (delete "a")
L400: "are ideal"
L410: "bean" => "beam"
L415: Could add a sentence about sensitivity to $K^+ \to
pi^+ X$ where
$X$ is an invisible scalar or pseudoscalar.
L439: delete "on" before "operational"
L441: "resulting from linear ..."
L484: "factory"
L485: "has a branching fraction"
L486: "existence"
P15, Table 1-3: Could a line be added regarding
sensitivity to $A_{CP}(K^0 \pi^0)$?
L520: "Cabibbo"
L556: period at end.
L583: "LHCb"
L591: "decays. In 2011"
P18, Fig. 1-5 caption: For what process is the
forward-backward asymmetry plotted? L2: space after
"prediction"
L595: Quote relation of $\beta_s$ to $\phi_s$ mentioned
earlier.
L609: "relative to the direction"
P19, Table 1-4: "Precision" (cap.)
Table 1-4: Entry 0.35 for phi_s is curious. Seems to
contradict L596.
L628: "ability to handle"
L642: "its energy"
L658: "come from fixed target"
L674, 680: "$D_s(4010)$" => "$\psi(4010)$
L684: "lattice" (lower case)
L704: "physics"
P22, Table 1-5: the "current expt." figure for $|q/p|$
doesn't make
sense when listed with other entries in the row.
L721: "and will help to discriminate among"
L732: "quantum numbers"
L736 and many on P23: $B$ (math mode) whenever talking
about $B$
mesons.
L756: "initiatives"
L759: "Cabibbo"
References: Check for consistent use of titles (omit when
published),
bold face (volume numbers, not letters except for Nucl. Phys.
B),
order in text, caps. ("J-PARC" in [37]), misprints ([48]),
incompleteness
([62,65]), etc.
Regards,
Jon
12. From Taku Yamanaka
Here are my comments.
L.28: ... directly detected.
Also, the non-zero $\epsilon
'/\epsilon$ [refs] established the direct CP violation,
and strengthened the CKM model.
[refs]: G.D. Barr et al., Phys.
Lett. B 317, 233 (1993),
A.
Alavi-Harati et al. (KTeV), Phys. Rev. Lett. 832, 22 (1999).
L.147: The latter is B(K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar{\nu}) .
L.288: JPARC ==> J-PARC
L.394: the only credible opportunity
I am a little hesitant to say "only"
here...
L.745: ... to review some history in
the U.S..
L.762: "This would make sense if the
physics opportunities provided by these experiments
were
second class."
Looking
from outside, this is not a friendly statement, even though it
is denied right after it.
The
statement is implying almost like: "Let Asia and Europe do
unimportant science."
If those
physics are second class, running those experiments in Asia and
Europe
does NOT
make sense for people and countries running those experiments.
Just
switch the sides, and you get the idea.
Best regards,
- taku